<?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>1959 (11) TMI 51 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128066</link>
    <description>A rule fixing the single taxable point and identifying the liable buyer was upheld as consistent with the parent sales tax statute because it operated within the charging scheme and did not enlarge the tax. A resident agent who conducted buying and selling operations in the State for a non-resident principal was held liable to assessment under the agency deeming provision. The transactions were treated as completed intra-State sales because sale, payment, and delivery all occurred within the State, and any later movement of goods outside the State was not shown to form part of the contract of sale; Article 286(2) therefore did not bar the levy.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 1959 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 Mar 2013 11:44:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164938" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1959 (11) TMI 51 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128066</link>
      <description>A rule fixing the single taxable point and identifying the liable buyer was upheld as consistent with the parent sales tax statute because it operated within the charging scheme and did not enlarge the tax. A resident agent who conducted buying and selling operations in the State for a non-resident principal was held liable to assessment under the agency deeming provision. The transactions were treated as completed intra-State sales because sale, payment, and delivery all occurred within the State, and any later movement of goods outside the State was not shown to form part of the contract of sale; Article 286(2) therefore did not bar the levy.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 1959 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128066</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>