<?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>1990 (7) TMI 326 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156025</link>
    <description>The appellant was found not to be an agent of the Director-General of Supplies and Disposals in the import of carbamite. The Tribunal determined that there were two separate sales, one between the foreign supplier and the appellant, and another between the appellant and the Director-General. The court concluded that the sales were integrated to form one transaction. Additionally, the sale to the Director-General was deemed to be in the course of import, not merely an inter-State sale. Ultimately, the first and second questions were answered in favor of the Revenue, while the third question was resolved in favor of the applicant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Jul 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Sep 2013 14:32:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=173052" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (7) TMI 326 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156025</link>
      <description>The appellant was found not to be an agent of the Director-General of Supplies and Disposals in the import of carbamite. The Tribunal determined that there were two separate sales, one between the foreign supplier and the appellant, and another between the appellant and the Director-General. The court concluded that the sales were integrated to form one transaction. Additionally, the sale to the Director-General was deemed to be in the course of import, not merely an inter-State sale. Ultimately, the first and second questions were answered in favor of the Revenue, while the third question was resolved in favor of the applicant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Jul 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156025</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>