<?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 (9) TMI 43 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=129015</link>
    <description>A sale is in the course of import where the movement of goods from abroad to India is the direct result of, and inseparably linked with, the contract of sale. On the stated facts, the goods were to be manufactured abroad, inspected in London, shipped from the United Kingdom, and delivered at Madras under a CIF arrangement, so the transit was an essential incident of the bargain and not an independent local sale. Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act, read with Article 286, prevent such a transaction from being treated as an intra-State sale merely because delivery or payment occurred in Madras; passing of property was not decisive, and appropriation was treated as having occurred outside Madras.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Sep 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Apr 2013 12:54:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=165884" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1964 (9) TMI 43 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=129015</link>
      <description>A sale is in the course of import where the movement of goods from abroad to India is the direct result of, and inseparably linked with, the contract of sale. On the stated facts, the goods were to be manufactured abroad, inspected in London, shipped from the United Kingdom, and delivered at Madras under a CIF arrangement, so the transit was an essential incident of the bargain and not an independent local sale. Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act, read with Article 286, prevent such a transaction from being treated as an intra-State sale merely because delivery or payment occurred in Madras; passing of property was not decisive, and appropriation was treated as having occurred outside Madras.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Sep 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=129015</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>