<?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>1960 (4) TMI 56 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128072</link>
    <description>Under the amended first proviso to section 3(2) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, tax was attracted only on the first sale within the State after import, made by a resident dealer and not exempt. On the facts described, the import formed part of the very sale transaction by non-resident mills to the petitioners, and delivery of railway receipts through banks or indenting agents did not amount to a separate post-import sale in Madras. No material showed any antecedent taxable sale within the State after import, and the retrospective amendment did not change that position. The petitions were therefore dismissed and the additional sales tax sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Apr 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 Mar 2013 13:05:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164944" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1960 (4) TMI 56 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128072</link>
      <description>Under the amended first proviso to section 3(2) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, tax was attracted only on the first sale within the State after import, made by a resident dealer and not exempt. On the facts described, the import formed part of the very sale transaction by non-resident mills to the petitioners, and delivery of railway receipts through banks or indenting agents did not amount to a separate post-import sale in Madras. No material showed any antecedent taxable sale within the State after import, and the retrospective amendment did not change that position. The petitions were therefore dismissed and the additional sales tax sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Apr 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128072</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>