<?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 (11) TMI 253 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153109</link>
    <description>A co-operative sugar society&#039;s procurement of sugarcane from grower-members was treated as a sale, not an agency arrangement, because the bye-laws showed the society acquired the cane for its own manufacturing activity, fixed prices, and sold the finished product without members controlling the resale. Co-operative management features did not by themselves create agency. A separate agreement for cultivation on members&#039; lands also did not amount to a partnership, as there was no mutual agency or real joint business intent. The main supply transaction therefore remained liable to purchase tax, and the cultivation arrangement could not alter that tax position by treating the crop as sold by a partnership.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 15 Nov 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Jul 2013 15:39:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=170146" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1979 (11) TMI 253 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153109</link>
      <description>A co-operative sugar society&#039;s procurement of sugarcane from grower-members was treated as a sale, not an agency arrangement, because the bye-laws showed the society acquired the cane for its own manufacturing activity, fixed prices, and sold the finished product without members controlling the resale. Co-operative management features did not by themselves create agency. A separate agreement for cultivation on members&#039; lands also did not amount to a partnership, as there was no mutual agency or real joint business intent. The main supply transaction therefore remained liable to purchase tax, and the cultivation arrangement could not alter that tax position by treating the crop as sold by a partnership.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Nov 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153109</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>