<?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>1986 (7) TMI 360 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154419</link>
    <description>Goods sent outside the State to agents on consignment basis did not acquire the character of the &quot;last purchase&quot; merely because they remained in closing stock at year-end. Purchase tax arises only when the purchase becomes the last purchase inside the State, and goods retained by the assessee with power of disposal continued to form part of the assessee&#039;s stock for tax purposes. The fact that the closing stock was held outside the State made no legally relevant difference, and the statutory explanation to section 2(xxvi) required such goods to be carried forward until sold or otherwise becoming the last purchase in the State. On that basis, the closing stock was not exigible to tax and the Revenue&#039;s revisions failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Aug 2013 18:38:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=171450" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (7) TMI 360 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154419</link>
      <description>Goods sent outside the State to agents on consignment basis did not acquire the character of the &quot;last purchase&quot; merely because they remained in closing stock at year-end. Purchase tax arises only when the purchase becomes the last purchase inside the State, and goods retained by the assessee with power of disposal continued to form part of the assessee&#039;s stock for tax purposes. The fact that the closing stock was held outside the State made no legally relevant difference, and the statutory explanation to section 2(xxvi) required such goods to be carried forward until sold or otherwise becoming the last purchase in the State. On that basis, the closing stock was not exigible to tax and the Revenue&#039;s revisions failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154419</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>