<?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>1961 (3) TMI 81 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128193</link>
    <description>Goods delivered outside a State for intended consumption there are covered by the constitutional exemption in Article 286(1)(a) if the sale directly results in such delivery. Actual proof that the goods were in fact consumed in the destination State is not required. The governing legal position is that delivery outside the State for consumption there is sufficient, and earlier reasoning demanding proof of actual consumption was incorrect in law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Mar 1961 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Mar 2013 18:35:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=165064" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1961 (3) TMI 81 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128193</link>
      <description>Goods delivered outside a State for intended consumption there are covered by the constitutional exemption in Article 286(1)(a) if the sale directly results in such delivery. Actual proof that the goods were in fact consumed in the destination State is not required. The governing legal position is that delivery outside the State for consumption there is sufficient, and earlier reasoning demanding proof of actual consumption was incorrect in law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Mar 1961 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128193</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>