<?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>1963 (2) TMI 35 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128632</link>
    <description>Groundnut oil sales were treated as inter-State sales under section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act because the goods were despatched by the seller, the railway receipts stood in his name, and title was endorsed to buyers only after movement had begun and payment was received. The transactions therefore fell outside the State sales tax field. A deduction or rebate was unavailable because the relevant turnover rules allowed the concession only when the sale value was included in taxable turnover and the statutory conditions were satisfied. Where the sales were excluded as inter-State transactions, there was no right to insist on taxation merely to obtain the concession.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Feb 1963 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Apr 2013 14:42:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=165501" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1963 (2) TMI 35 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128632</link>
      <description>Groundnut oil sales were treated as inter-State sales under section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act because the goods were despatched by the seller, the railway receipts stood in his name, and title was endorsed to buyers only after movement had begun and payment was received. The transactions therefore fell outside the State sales tax field. A deduction or rebate was unavailable because the relevant turnover rules allowed the concession only when the sale value was included in taxable turnover and the statutory conditions were satisfied. Where the sales were excluded as inter-State transactions, there was no right to insist on taxation merely to obtain the concession.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Feb 1963 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128632</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>