<?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>1972 (4) TMI 84 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA  HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150367</link>
    <description>Distribution agreements requiring the manufacturer to supply identified branded goods to designated distributors, with the distributors bound to purchase them and the goods earmarked at the factory, were treated as contracts of sale in substance. On that basis, the movement of refrigerators from Faridabad to Delhi was found to be occasioned by the agreements rather than a separate transfer for storage or logistics. Applying the settled test under section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the distributorship form did not alter the legal character of the transaction, because the substance was a transfer of property for consideration and the inter-State movement was integral to the sale.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Apr 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 May 2013 17:33:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=167408" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1972 (4) TMI 84 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA  HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150367</link>
      <description>Distribution agreements requiring the manufacturer to supply identified branded goods to designated distributors, with the distributors bound to purchase them and the goods earmarked at the factory, were treated as contracts of sale in substance. On that basis, the movement of refrigerators from Faridabad to Delhi was found to be occasioned by the agreements rather than a separate transfer for storage or logistics. Applying the settled test under section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the distributorship form did not alter the legal character of the transaction, because the substance was a transfer of property for consideration and the inter-State movement was integral to the sale.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Apr 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150367</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>