<?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>1982 (8) TMI 202 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153534</link>
    <description>Goods sold ex-godown to out-of-State buyers were treated as local sales because the evidence showed delivery and purchase occurred within the State, and the subsequent transport was arranged by the buyers at their own cost and responsibility. The assessees&#039; admissions before the assessing authority, together with sale bills showing no transport charges borne by the sellers, supported the conclusion that the movement of goods was not pursuant to the contract of sale. A claim of coercion and misrepresentation in obtaining those statements was rejected as an afterthought. The governing principle is that a transaction is inter-State only when the movement of goods outside the State is referable to the sale contract; on these facts, exemption failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Aug 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Jul 2013 16:26:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=170569" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1982 (8) TMI 202 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153534</link>
      <description>Goods sold ex-godown to out-of-State buyers were treated as local sales because the evidence showed delivery and purchase occurred within the State, and the subsequent transport was arranged by the buyers at their own cost and responsibility. The assessees&#039; admissions before the assessing authority, together with sale bills showing no transport charges borne by the sellers, supported the conclusion that the movement of goods was not pursuant to the contract of sale. A claim of coercion and misrepresentation in obtaining those statements was rejected as an afterthought. The governing principle is that a transaction is inter-State only when the movement of goods outside the State is referable to the sale contract; on these facts, exemption failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Aug 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153534</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>