<?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 (8) TMI 55 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128991</link>
    <description>The proviso to section 2(r) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, exempts only the sale proceeds of agricultural or horticultural produce grown by the dealer claiming the benefit, so a co-operative society cannot claim exemption merely because it facilitates sale of members&#039; produce. Where the society acts as a dealer or selling agent with authority to transfer property in the goods, the resulting turnover is its own turnover and not that of the member-growers. The earlier agency-based reasoning under the 1939 Act was inapplicable because that statute contained a special fiction absent from the 1959 Act. The Tribunal&#039;s broader view of the proviso was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Aug 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Apr 2013 10:48:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=165860" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1964 (8) TMI 55 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128991</link>
      <description>The proviso to section 2(r) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, exempts only the sale proceeds of agricultural or horticultural produce grown by the dealer claiming the benefit, so a co-operative society cannot claim exemption merely because it facilitates sale of members&#039; produce. Where the society acts as a dealer or selling agent with authority to transfer property in the goods, the resulting turnover is its own turnover and not that of the member-growers. The earlier agency-based reasoning under the 1939 Act was inapplicable because that statute contained a special fiction absent from the 1959 Act. The Tribunal&#039;s broader view of the proviso was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Aug 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128991</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>