<?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 (9) TMI 100 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150950</link>
    <description>A co-operative society that arranged sale of its farmer-members&#039; produce, issued sale documents, realised commission, and had authority to conclude bargains on behalf of sellers was treated as a dealer under the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The statutory definition of dealer, read with its explanation, covers mercantile agents such as commission agents and auctioneers who carry on buying or selling on behalf of principals or through whom goods are sold or purchased. Even without strict dominion over the goods as a selling agent, the society operated as the agency through which the sales were effected, so the issue was answered in the affirmative against the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Sep 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 10:37:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=167989" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1974 (9) TMI 100 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150950</link>
      <description>A co-operative society that arranged sale of its farmer-members&#039; produce, issued sale documents, realised commission, and had authority to conclude bargains on behalf of sellers was treated as a dealer under the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The statutory definition of dealer, read with its explanation, covers mercantile agents such as commission agents and auctioneers who carry on buying or selling on behalf of principals or through whom goods are sold or purchased. Even without strict dominion over the goods as a selling agent, the society operated as the agency through which the sales were effected, so the issue was answered in the affirmative against the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Sep 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150950</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>