<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1957 (7) TMI 32 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127740</link>
    <description>Property in goods passes under the parties&#039; intention under section 19 of the Sale of Goods Act, and sections 23 and 25 apply only to unconditional appropriation without reservation of the right of disposal. On the stated facts, the seller took railway receipts in its own name, retained control until payment was made through the bank, and withheld delivery until the balance price was realised, showing reservation of jus disponendi. The sales were therefore completed outside the State, and the transactions were not taxable as sales within the State under section 2(h) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act. The State was held to have no power to levy tax on these transactions, leaving the refund decrees undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Jul 1957 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 Mar 2013 16:44:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164615" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1957 (7) TMI 32 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127740</link>
      <description>Property in goods passes under the parties&#039; intention under section 19 of the Sale of Goods Act, and sections 23 and 25 apply only to unconditional appropriation without reservation of the right of disposal. On the stated facts, the seller took railway receipts in its own name, retained control until payment was made through the bank, and withheld delivery until the balance price was realised, showing reservation of jus disponendi. The sales were therefore completed outside the State, and the transactions were not taxable as sales within the State under section 2(h) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act. The State was held to have no power to levy tax on these transactions, leaving the refund decrees undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Jul 1957 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127740</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>