<?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>1988 (2) TMI 453 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155821</link>
    <description>A forest bamboo arrangement was treated as a grant of profit a prendre, not a sale of goods, because the lessee received only a controlled right to enter forest land, fell and remove bamboo subject to working plans, annual allotment, weighment, transit control, royalty revision, supervision and termination rights. The bamboos were not in a deliverable state when the agreements were made, so property did not pass under the sale law or sales tax statute. Annual cutting and removal did not convert the arrangement into a contract of sale; royalty was payable for exercise of the right, not as price. The transaction therefore fell outside the charging concept of sale.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Feb 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Sep 2013 12:27:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=172848" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (2) TMI 453 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155821</link>
      <description>A forest bamboo arrangement was treated as a grant of profit a prendre, not a sale of goods, because the lessee received only a controlled right to enter forest land, fell and remove bamboo subject to working plans, annual allotment, weighment, transit control, royalty revision, supervision and termination rights. The bamboos were not in a deliverable state when the agreements were made, so property did not pass under the sale law or sales tax statute. Annual cutting and removal did not convert the arrangement into a contract of sale; royalty was payable for exercise of the right, not as price. The transaction therefore fell outside the charging concept of sale.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Feb 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155821</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>