<?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>1976 (2) TMI 152 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151104</link>
    <description>Paddy delivered by cultivators to nominated agents under the levy order constituted sales for sales tax purposes because the agents were not mere conduits for the Government. The order required the agents to take delivery, weigh, inspect, store and supply the paddy or equivalent rice on their own responsibility, indicating that they acquired ownership and dealt with the stock on their own account before resale to the Government. The absence of a formal written contract did not negate mutuality, as the transaction still allowed agreement on quality, timing, delivery, acceptance and payment. The regulatory control regime limited the trade, but did not remove the essential elements of a sale, so the transactions were liable to sales tax.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Feb 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 May 2013 14:37:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=168143" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1976 (2) TMI 152 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151104</link>
      <description>Paddy delivered by cultivators to nominated agents under the levy order constituted sales for sales tax purposes because the agents were not mere conduits for the Government. The order required the agents to take delivery, weigh, inspect, store and supply the paddy or equivalent rice on their own responsibility, indicating that they acquired ownership and dealt with the stock on their own account before resale to the Government. The absence of a formal written contract did not negate mutuality, as the transaction still allowed agreement on quality, timing, delivery, acceptance and payment. The regulatory control regime limited the trade, but did not remove the essential elements of a sale, so the transactions were liable to sales tax.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Feb 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151104</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>