<?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 344 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156472</link>
    <description>Sales of cloth made under a statutory control order and permit requiring delivery to nominees in another State for consumption there were treated as inter-State sales. The control order and permit formed part of the contractual framework, the D class licensees acted only as handling agents, and they had no independent capacity to purchase the cloth. The decisive factor was that the movement of goods outside the State was occasioned by the statutory permit itself; physical despatch by the dealer and the place where title passed did not alter the legal character of the sale. Such transactions were therefore outside the State sales tax net under article 286(1)(a).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jul 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Sep 2013 15:15:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=173499" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (7) TMI 344 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156472</link>
      <description>Sales of cloth made under a statutory control order and permit requiring delivery to nominees in another State for consumption there were treated as inter-State sales. The control order and permit formed part of the contractual framework, the D class licensees acted only as handling agents, and they had no independent capacity to purchase the cloth. The decisive factor was that the movement of goods outside the State was occasioned by the statutory permit itself; physical despatch by the dealer and the place where title passed did not alter the legal character of the sale. Such transactions were therefore outside the State sales tax net under article 286(1)(a).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jul 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156472</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>