<?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>1971 (8) TMI 219 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150284</link>
    <description>The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, an incorporated company, in a sales tax liability case. The court found that the transactions in question, involving the re-allotment of imported stock to another party as directed by the Import Controller, did not constitute sales attracting sales tax liability. Citing precedent, the court held that transactions made under specific directives, not resulting from a contract of sale, do not amount to sales for sales tax purposes. As a result, the court allowed the writ petition, quashed the sales tax assessment order, and concluded that the petitioner was not liable for sales tax in this scenario.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 02 Aug 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 May 2013 11:47:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=167325" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1971 (8) TMI 219 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150284</link>
      <description>The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, an incorporated company, in a sales tax liability case. The court found that the transactions in question, involving the re-allotment of imported stock to another party as directed by the Import Controller, did not constitute sales attracting sales tax liability. Citing precedent, the court held that transactions made under specific directives, not resulting from a contract of sale, do not amount to sales for sales tax purposes. As a result, the court allowed the writ petition, quashed the sales tax assessment order, and concluded that the petitioner was not liable for sales tax in this scenario.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Aug 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150284</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>