<?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>1991 (10) TMI 278 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156617</link>
    <description>An assessee authorised under an agreement to hold stock for a corporation, sell specified quantities at prescribed prices, collect proceeds, retain only a service charge, and remit the balance was treated as a commission agent with authority to sell. On that basis, the agent fell within the inclusive definition of &quot;dealer&quot; under section 2(g) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, and was liable to sales tax on the turnover of wheat bran and other wheat products. A private arrangement that the corporation would bear the tax did not affect the statutory liability to the Revenue, and the risk of double recovery did not displace liability absent proof of prior collection on the same turnover.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Oct 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Sep 2013 10:59:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=173643" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (10) TMI 278 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156617</link>
      <description>An assessee authorised under an agreement to hold stock for a corporation, sell specified quantities at prescribed prices, collect proceeds, retain only a service charge, and remit the balance was treated as a commission agent with authority to sell. On that basis, the agent fell within the inclusive definition of &quot;dealer&quot; under section 2(g) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, and was liable to sales tax on the turnover of wheat bran and other wheat products. A private arrangement that the corporation would bear the tax did not affect the statutory liability to the Revenue, and the risk of double recovery did not displace liability absent proof of prior collection on the same turnover.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Oct 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156617</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>