<?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>1963 (10) TMI 23 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=129007</link>
    <description>Where timber was purchased on declarations that it would be resold by actual delivery in Madhya Pradesh for consumption in the State, section 4(6) applied only if that stated condition was satisfied. Because the contract and intended destination showed the timber was to be sent outside the State, the statutory basis for excluding the purchase price failed and the amount was includible in turnover. A later sale said to form part of inter-State trade did not defeat liability, since the original local purchases were taxable and the declarations merely postponed recovery; once the purchaser acted contrary to those declarations, he could not avoid inclusion by relying on the subsequent movement of goods.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Oct 1963 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Apr 2013 12:28:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=165876" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1963 (10) TMI 23 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=129007</link>
      <description>Where timber was purchased on declarations that it would be resold by actual delivery in Madhya Pradesh for consumption in the State, section 4(6) applied only if that stated condition was satisfied. Because the contract and intended destination showed the timber was to be sent outside the State, the statutory basis for excluding the purchase price failed and the amount was includible in turnover. A later sale said to form part of inter-State trade did not defeat liability, since the original local purchases were taxable and the declarations merely postponed recovery; once the purchaser acted contrary to those declarations, he could not avoid inclusion by relying on the subsequent movement of goods.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Oct 1963 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=129007</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>