<?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 (10) TMI 109 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150402</link>
    <description>Transactions are inter-State sales where goods move from outside the State pursuant to prior orders placed directly with the seller, even if a local representative takes delivery and distributes them. Here, the paper mills manufactured against specific indents, separately packed and billed the goods, consigned them only for delivery to the named purchasers, and retained direct debit arrangements with the buyers. Because the consignee had no discretion to divert the goods to others, direct privity existed between seller and purchaser. The court therefore treated the movement as part of inter-State trade and rejected local sale treatment under the Madras General Sales Tax Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Oct 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 May 2013 13:04:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=167443" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1972 (10) TMI 109 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150402</link>
      <description>Transactions are inter-State sales where goods move from outside the State pursuant to prior orders placed directly with the seller, even if a local representative takes delivery and distributes them. Here, the paper mills manufactured against specific indents, separately packed and billed the goods, consigned them only for delivery to the named purchasers, and retained direct debit arrangements with the buyers. Because the consignee had no discretion to divert the goods to others, direct privity existed between seller and purchaser. The court therefore treated the movement as part of inter-State trade and rejected local sale treatment under the Madras General Sales Tax Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Oct 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150402</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>