<?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 (8) TMI 60 - MYSORE HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128732</link>
    <description>A commission agent under the Mysore Sales Tax Act was taxable only if the deeming conditions in Explanation 3 to section 2(t) were satisfied. Mere deduction of genuine incidental expenses did not convert the agent into an ordinary dealer, because section 11 recognised such charges alongside commission. Where arecanuts of different principals were graded and pooled with the principals&#039; consent before sale, the principals became joint principals for that transaction, and the agent&#039;s duty was to account for the full sale proceeds. In the absence of any statutory prohibition or failure to account, the consensual pooling did not attract sales tax liability or forfeit the benefit available to a commission agent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Aug 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Apr 2013 16:27:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=165601" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1962 (8) TMI 60 - MYSORE HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128732</link>
      <description>A commission agent under the Mysore Sales Tax Act was taxable only if the deeming conditions in Explanation 3 to section 2(t) were satisfied. Mere deduction of genuine incidental expenses did not convert the agent into an ordinary dealer, because section 11 recognised such charges alongside commission. Where arecanuts of different principals were graded and pooled with the principals&#039; consent before sale, the principals became joint principals for that transaction, and the agent&#039;s duty was to account for the full sale proceeds. In the absence of any statutory prohibition or failure to account, the consensual pooling did not attract sales tax liability or forfeit the benefit available to a commission agent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Aug 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128732</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>