<?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 (1) TMI 142 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151507</link>
    <description>Supply of imported copper under the Non-ferrous Metals Control Order, 1958 remained capable of being treated as a sale under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 because the regulatory scheme, though fixing a ceiling price and restricting sales to permit-holders, did not remove all freedom of contract. The parties could still negotiate material terms such as supply, delivery, quality, timing and payment within the permitted framework, and the statutory price control alone did not negate contractual assent. Distinguishing cases where the statute left no room for mutual agreement, the Court held that a sale agreement could still be inferred and the transaction was a sale; the assessee&#039;s contrary contention failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Jan 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Jun 2013 17:01:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=168545" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1977 (1) TMI 142 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151507</link>
      <description>Supply of imported copper under the Non-ferrous Metals Control Order, 1958 remained capable of being treated as a sale under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 because the regulatory scheme, though fixing a ceiling price and restricting sales to permit-holders, did not remove all freedom of contract. The parties could still negotiate material terms such as supply, delivery, quality, timing and payment within the permitted framework, and the statutory price control alone did not negate contractual assent. Distinguishing cases where the statute left no room for mutual agreement, the Court held that a sale agreement could still be inferred and the transaction was a sale; the assessee&#039;s contrary contention failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Jan 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151507</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>