<?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>1967 (1) TMI 68 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148282</link>
    <description>A commission agent is treated as a dealer under section 2(c) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act only when he carries on the business of buying or selling goods on behalf of principals. A mere intermediary who brings buyers and sellers together, facilitates a face-to-face sale, and issues purchase memos does not fall within that definition. The decisive factors were that the sellers brought the goods themselves, the price was settled by them, the sales were completed in their presence, and property in the goods did not pass to the assessee. On those facts, the transactions were brokerage, not dealer activity, and the issue was answered against the department.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Jan 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2013 10:29:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166322" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1967 (1) TMI 68 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148282</link>
      <description>A commission agent is treated as a dealer under section 2(c) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act only when he carries on the business of buying or selling goods on behalf of principals. A mere intermediary who brings buyers and sellers together, facilitates a face-to-face sale, and issues purchase memos does not fall within that definition. The decisive factors were that the sellers brought the goods themselves, the price was settled by them, the sales were completed in their presence, and property in the goods did not pass to the assessee. On those facts, the transactions were brokerage, not dealer activity, and the issue was answered against the department.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Jan 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148282</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>