<?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 28 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=129032</link>
    <description>For Article 286(1)(a), taxability turns on whether goods were actually delivered outside the State for consumption there, meaning physical delivery or delivery putting the buyer in possession. Mere appropriation of specific goods, transfer of property within the State, or symbolic delivery through entrustment to a carrier or handing over railway receipts is not enough. The text notes that, on the record discussed, no authority had found actual physical delivery within the State, and the Tribunal gave no independent reasoning to support a contrary conclusion. It therefore explains that the assessment could not be sustained on that basis and that the assessee was entitled to relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jul 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Apr 2013 16:37:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=165901" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1964 (7) TMI 28 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=129032</link>
      <description>For Article 286(1)(a), taxability turns on whether goods were actually delivered outside the State for consumption there, meaning physical delivery or delivery putting the buyer in possession. Mere appropriation of specific goods, transfer of property within the State, or symbolic delivery through entrustment to a carrier or handing over railway receipts is not enough. The text notes that, on the record discussed, no authority had found actual physical delivery within the State, and the Tribunal gave no independent reasoning to support a contrary conclusion. It therefore explains that the assessment could not be sustained on that basis and that the assessee was entitled to relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jul 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=129032</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>