<?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 (7) TMI 25 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128984</link>
    <description>Circumstances suggesting agency under section 14-A of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 included the petitioners&#039; receipt of goods from the railway shed, custody and storage of the goods, and delivery to purchasers only after confirmation that the buyers had remitted the price to the non-resident dealers. The petitioners&#039; status as partners in the non-resident firm was also treated as supporting an inference that they were engaged to perform an important part of the sales on behalf of the non-resident sellers. The text then turns to the question whether the additional levy under section 3(2) could be sustained against the petitioners.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Apr 2013 10:08:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=165853" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1964 (7) TMI 25 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128984</link>
      <description>Circumstances suggesting agency under section 14-A of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 included the petitioners&#039; receipt of goods from the railway shed, custody and storage of the goods, and delivery to purchasers only after confirmation that the buyers had remitted the price to the non-resident dealers. The petitioners&#039; status as partners in the non-resident firm was also treated as supporting an inference that they were engaged to perform an important part of the sales on behalf of the non-resident sellers. The text then turns to the question whether the additional levy under section 3(2) could be sustained against the petitioners.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128984</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>