<?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>1968 (7) TMI 71 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148652</link>
    <description>Transactions routed through depots outside the State were treated as inter-State sales where the movement of goods from the head office State to the buyer in another State occurred under the contract of sale or as an incident of it. Depot-based order collection, invoice preparation and local price collection did not change the character of the movement when the goods were despatched from the head office for delivery to the out-of-State buyer and freight was to be borne by the buyer. The absence of a direct contract between the head office and the buyer was not determinative. The transactions were therefore characterised as inter-State rather than merely depot sales, and the matter was remitted for transaction-wise examination on that basis.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Jul 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 May 2013 15:39:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166692" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1968 (7) TMI 71 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148652</link>
      <description>Transactions routed through depots outside the State were treated as inter-State sales where the movement of goods from the head office State to the buyer in another State occurred under the contract of sale or as an incident of it. Depot-based order collection, invoice preparation and local price collection did not change the character of the movement when the goods were despatched from the head office for delivery to the out-of-State buyer and freight was to be borne by the buyer. The absence of a direct contract between the head office and the buyer was not determinative. The transactions were therefore characterised as inter-State rather than merely depot sales, and the matter was remitted for transaction-wise examination on that basis.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Jul 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148652</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>