<?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 53 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128071</link>
    <description>Section 18 of the Hyderabad General Sales Tax Act treated a resident agent of a non-resident principal as the dealer for tax purposes, and the court applied that deeming fiction because the agreement gave the assessee agency powers over delivery, storage, retention as security, commission, and sale. The plea that the assessee was only a financier was rejected. On Article 286(2), the court held that inter-State protection applies only where movement of goods across State lines is the direct and necessary result of the contract of sale. Here, the goods were to be delivered within the State and any later movement to Bombay arose from separate arrangements, so the State levy remained valid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 1959 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 Mar 2013 12:53:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164943" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1959 (11) TMI 53 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128071</link>
      <description>Section 18 of the Hyderabad General Sales Tax Act treated a resident agent of a non-resident principal as the dealer for tax purposes, and the court applied that deeming fiction because the agreement gave the assessee agency powers over delivery, storage, retention as security, commission, and sale. The plea that the assessee was only a financier was rejected. On Article 286(2), the court held that inter-State protection applies only where movement of goods across State lines is the direct and necessary result of the contract of sale. Here, the goods were to be delivered within the State and any later movement to Bombay arose from separate arrangements, so the State levy remained valid.</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=128071</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>