<?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>1964 (1) TMI 37 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128853</link>
    <description>The High Court determined that the petitioner, a Manager at a railway station book stall, was not considered a &quot;dealer&quot; under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The Court emphasized the significant control exerted by the Railway Administration over the petitioner&#039;s vending activities, indicating a master-servant relationship rather than an independent vendor arrangement. As a result, the petitioner was deemed akin to a servant, and the sales of food items were viewed as directly made by the Railway Administration through the petitioner. The assessment order for sales tax was set aside, and the petitioner was awarded costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Jan 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Apr 2013 12:42:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=165722" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1964 (1) TMI 37 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128853</link>
      <description>The High Court determined that the petitioner, a Manager at a railway station book stall, was not considered a &quot;dealer&quot; under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The Court emphasized the significant control exerted by the Railway Administration over the petitioner&#039;s vending activities, indicating a master-servant relationship rather than an independent vendor arrangement. As a result, the petitioner was deemed akin to a servant, and the sales of food items were viewed as directly made by the Railway Administration through the petitioner. The assessment order for sales tax was set aside, and the petitioner was awarded costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Jan 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128853</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>