<?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 83 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128647</link>
    <description>An agent need not have authority to conclude purchases to attract section 18 of the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act, 1125, if the evidence shows he was otherwise concerned in the non-resident principal&#039;s business; acts such as transmitting offers, financing buyers, settling accounts, retaining goods and arranging drying, packing and transport were treated as sufficient participation. Exemption under section 9 required more than a licence and vouchers: the licensee had to prove that the sale proceeds were actually included in the principals&#039; turnover, or would have been included but for an applicable exemption. On that basis, section 18 applied, but exemption under section 9 was not proved.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Apr 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Apr 2013 16:06:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=165516" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1962 (4) TMI 83 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128647</link>
      <description>An agent need not have authority to conclude purchases to attract section 18 of the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act, 1125, if the evidence shows he was otherwise concerned in the non-resident principal&#039;s business; acts such as transmitting offers, financing buyers, settling accounts, retaining goods and arranging drying, packing and transport were treated as sufficient participation. Exemption under section 9 required more than a licence and vouchers: the licensee had to prove that the sale proceeds were actually included in the principals&#039; turnover, or would have been included but for an applicable exemption. On that basis, section 18 applied, but exemption under section 9 was not proved.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Apr 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128647</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>