<?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>1962 (4) TMI 78 - MAHARASHTRA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128479</link>
    <description>For sales tax purposes, a transaction is includible in turnover if it has a reasonable connection with the dealer&#039;s normal business activity; a solitary sale is not excluded merely because it is isolated, and the ship sale here was treated as part of the applicant&#039;s ship-breaking business. The Assistant Collector also had jurisdiction to revise the assessment under the Collector&#039;s delegated powers, since delegation under the statute carried coextensive authority within its limits. The sale was held to have occurred within the State of Bombay because it was completed in Bombay docks, and it did not qualify for export exemption since the export was not an integral and compulsory consequence of the sale.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Apr 2013 12:20:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=165348" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1962 (4) TMI 78 - MAHARASHTRA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128479</link>
      <description>For sales tax purposes, a transaction is includible in turnover if it has a reasonable connection with the dealer&#039;s normal business activity; a solitary sale is not excluded merely because it is isolated, and the ship sale here was treated as part of the applicant&#039;s ship-breaking business. The Assistant Collector also had jurisdiction to revise the assessment under the Collector&#039;s delegated powers, since delegation under the statute carried coextensive authority within its limits. The sale was held to have occurred within the State of Bombay because it was completed in Bombay docks, and it did not qualify for export exemption since the export was not an integral and compulsory consequence of the sale.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128479</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>