<?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>1979 (10) TMI 203 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152822</link>
    <description>An incorporated association that merely facilitated distribution of controlled goods to its members, under allotments fixed by the authorities, was treated as a mutual self-help body and not a dealer because it acquired no real proprietary interest in the goods. The arrangement lacked the essential elements of a taxable sale, so the distribution transactions were not liable to sales tax. Furnishing C forms did not change the true character of the transactions or prove that the association was trading on its own account, and that circumstance did not defeat the claim that the dealings were agency transactions. The assessment therefore could not stand, and exemption from sales tax was accepted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Oct 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Jul 2013 15:41:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=169859" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1979 (10) TMI 203 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152822</link>
      <description>An incorporated association that merely facilitated distribution of controlled goods to its members, under allotments fixed by the authorities, was treated as a mutual self-help body and not a dealer because it acquired no real proprietary interest in the goods. The arrangement lacked the essential elements of a taxable sale, so the distribution transactions were not liable to sales tax. Furnishing C forms did not change the true character of the transactions or prove that the association was trading on its own account, and that circumstance did not defeat the claim that the dealings were agency transactions. The assessment therefore could not stand, and exemption from sales tax was accepted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Oct 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152822</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>