<?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>1977 (4) TMI 159 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151493</link>
    <description>Endorsement of railway receipts during transit was treated as a sale in the course of movement under section 3(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act because the goods were ascertained, appropriated to the contract, and the documents of title were endorsed after loading but before delivery to the buyer. Later payment and final acceptance did not alter the transfer of property or take the transaction outside section 3(b). The proviso to section 9(1) applied because the prescribed form had been obtained in Tamil Nadu, making Tamil Nadu the State competent to levy and collect tax on the subsequent inter-State sale. Section 6(2) was held inapplicable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Apr 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Jun 2013 16:06:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=168531" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1977 (4) TMI 159 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151493</link>
      <description>Endorsement of railway receipts during transit was treated as a sale in the course of movement under section 3(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act because the goods were ascertained, appropriated to the contract, and the documents of title were endorsed after loading but before delivery to the buyer. Later payment and final acceptance did not alter the transfer of property or take the transaction outside section 3(b). The proviso to section 9(1) applied because the prescribed form had been obtained in Tamil Nadu, making Tamil Nadu the State competent to levy and collect tax on the subsequent inter-State sale. Section 6(2) was held inapplicable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Apr 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151493</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>