<?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 (12) TMI 156 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151279</link>
    <description>The court held that the transactions did not qualify as inter-State sales under either section 3(a) or section 3(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The tax revision petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded to either party. The judgment emphasized the significance of clear terms in the contract specifying the movement of goods and transfer of documents to establish transactions as inter-State sales under the Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Dec 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Jun 2013 15:27:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=168318" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1975 (12) TMI 156 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151279</link>
      <description>The court held that the transactions did not qualify as inter-State sales under either section 3(a) or section 3(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The tax revision petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded to either party. The judgment emphasized the significance of clear terms in the contract specifying the movement of goods and transfer of documents to establish transactions as inter-State sales under the Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Dec 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151279</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>