<?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>1958 (4) TMI 102 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127770</link>
    <description>A commission agent assessed for a non-resident principal may still claim turnover exemption for agricultural produce where the exemption attaches to the principal&#039;s goods, because the agent functions only as the statutory machinery for assessment and collection. The agricultural-produce exemption was therefore applied in computing turnover for rubber sales and for tea up to 1 January 1948. By contrast, exemption for tea intended for delivery outside the State depended on proof of actual delivery outside the State, and the existing record was insufficient to determine the contractual mode and place of delivery. That issue required fresh evidence and reconsideration on remand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Apr 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Mar 2013 12:54:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164645" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1958 (4) TMI 102 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127770</link>
      <description>A commission agent assessed for a non-resident principal may still claim turnover exemption for agricultural produce where the exemption attaches to the principal&#039;s goods, because the agent functions only as the statutory machinery for assessment and collection. The agricultural-produce exemption was therefore applied in computing turnover for rubber sales and for tea up to 1 January 1948. By contrast, exemption for tea intended for delivery outside the State depended on proof of actual delivery outside the State, and the existing record was insufficient to determine the contractual mode and place of delivery. That issue required fresh evidence and reconsideration on remand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Apr 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127770</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>