<?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>1975 (5) TMI 82 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151099</link>
    <description>Rice procurement under a statutory levy order was held not to create a principal-agent relationship between State officers and the Food Corporation of India, because compulsory procurement under delegated powers did not amount to legal representation of the Corporation. The onward supply of rice was also held not to be a taxable sale, as the levy scheme involved statutory compulsion, no mutual assent, no freedom of contract, and no profit-motive. The Court further held that the writ petitions were maintainable despite an appellate remedy, since the challenge went to jurisdiction and rested on admitted or patent facts. The assessment orders and demand notices were quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 17 May 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 May 2013 14:03:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=168138" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1975 (5) TMI 82 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151099</link>
      <description>Rice procurement under a statutory levy order was held not to create a principal-agent relationship between State officers and the Food Corporation of India, because compulsory procurement under delegated powers did not amount to legal representation of the Corporation. The onward supply of rice was also held not to be a taxable sale, as the levy scheme involved statutory compulsion, no mutual assent, no freedom of contract, and no profit-motive. The Court further held that the writ petitions were maintainable despite an appellate remedy, since the challenge went to jurisdiction and rested on admitted or patent facts. The assessment orders and demand notices were quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 17 May 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151099</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>