<?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>1974 (12) TMI 62 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150881</link>
    <description>Contractual timber supply terms were construed as requiring standing trees to be felled and hammer-marked at stump site before removal, so the goods were not in a deliverable state until that process was completed and property passed only then. On that interpretation, the sale concerned hammer-marked logs rather than merely standing trees. Because the purchaser&#039;s only relevant activity was the pre-sale felling of timber before the hammer-mark was applied and before title passed, that activity was treated as manufacture for sales tax purposes. The reference was answered against the purchaser&#039;s claim for resale exemption, and the revenue&#039;s position prevailed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Dec 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 18:41:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=167921" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1974 (12) TMI 62 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150881</link>
      <description>Contractual timber supply terms were construed as requiring standing trees to be felled and hammer-marked at stump site before removal, so the goods were not in a deliverable state until that process was completed and property passed only then. On that interpretation, the sale concerned hammer-marked logs rather than merely standing trees. Because the purchaser&#039;s only relevant activity was the pre-sale felling of timber before the hammer-mark was applied and before title passed, that activity was treated as manufacture for sales tax purposes. The reference was answered against the purchaser&#039;s claim for resale exemption, and the revenue&#039;s position prevailed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Dec 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150881</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>