<?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 (10) TMI 30 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127763</link>
    <description>Sales tax depended on where property in the coal passed, not merely on the location of the contracting parties or railway lands. In F.O.W. sales, the goods never entered Madras territory; in T.I.B. sales, delivery and passing of property occurred in Cochin waters before Explanation II to Section 2(h) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act took effect; and in F.O.R. sales, title passed when the coal was loaded at Cochin Harbour Terminus. A 1906 notification deeming railway lands part of Malabar District operated only for administration of justice and did not enlarge the taxing territory. On that basis, the transactions were outside Madras jurisdiction for sales tax.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Oct 1957 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Mar 2013 11:31:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164638" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1957 (10) TMI 30 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127763</link>
      <description>Sales tax depended on where property in the coal passed, not merely on the location of the contracting parties or railway lands. In F.O.W. sales, the goods never entered Madras territory; in T.I.B. sales, delivery and passing of property occurred in Cochin waters before Explanation II to Section 2(h) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act took effect; and in F.O.R. sales, title passed when the coal was loaded at Cochin Harbour Terminus. A 1906 notification deeming railway lands part of Malabar District operated only for administration of justice and did not enlarge the taxing territory. On that basis, the transactions were outside Madras jurisdiction for sales tax.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Oct 1957 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127763</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>