https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128438 Property in the rubber consignments was treated as passing in Bombay, not in Cochin, because the goods were shipped on documents held through the bank, with delivery against payment in Bombay and the insurance-risk wording not being decisive. On purchase tax, section 10(a) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 was applied according to its plain language: tax was attracted where goods were bought from an unregistered dealer, and no territorial limitation was read into the word "person". Section 10C was treated as covering a different class of transactions. The purchases were therefore held liable to purchase tax. en-us Mon, 23 Apr 1962 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Apr 2013 15:49:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128438 Property in the rubber consignments was treated as passing in Bombay, not in Cochin, because the goods were shipped on documents held through the bank, with delivery against payment in Bombay and the insurance-risk wording not being decisive. On purchase tax, section 10(a) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 was applied according to its plain language: tax was attracted where goods were bought from an unregistered dealer, and no territorial limitation was read into the word "person". Section 10C was treated as covering a different class of transactions. The purchases were therefore held liable to purchase tax. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 23 Apr 1962 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128438