<?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 (6) TMI 40 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148336</link>
    <description>Bread supplied to hospitals through stocks obtained from sister concerns was treated as accommodation sales excluded from turnover. The court applied section 2(r) and rule 6(c) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act on the basis that the assessees procured goods from another dealer to meet a particular customer&#039;s requirement, sold them immediately to that customer, recorded the transactions as accommodation sales with the supplying dealer&#039;s name, and made no profit. It rejected the argument that such sales must be casual or occasional, holding that no such limitation could be read into the rule. The transactions therefore fell within rule 6(c) and were rightly excluded from turnover.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jun 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2013 17:19:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166376" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1967 (6) TMI 40 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148336</link>
      <description>Bread supplied to hospitals through stocks obtained from sister concerns was treated as accommodation sales excluded from turnover. The court applied section 2(r) and rule 6(c) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act on the basis that the assessees procured goods from another dealer to meet a particular customer&#039;s requirement, sold them immediately to that customer, recorded the transactions as accommodation sales with the supplying dealer&#039;s name, and made no profit. It rejected the argument that such sales must be casual or occasional, holding that no such limitation could be read into the rule. The transactions therefore fell within rule 6(c) and were rightly excluded from turnover.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jun 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148336</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>