<?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 (6) TMI 227 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156619</link>
    <description>Transactions between a co-operative society and its members were examined to determine whether unginned cotton supplied by members, then ginned, crushed and sold by the society, amounted to sales and purchases. The bye-laws showed that the society acted only on behalf of its members, did not acquire property in the goods, and any loss from the transactions was borne proportionately by the members. That structure was treated as consistent with agency and inconsistent with a sale. The society&#039;s registration also carried a condition against dealing on its own account, and there was no breach of that condition. The arrangement was therefore characterised as agency, not sale.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Jun 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Sep 2013 11:05:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=173645" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (6) TMI 227 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156619</link>
      <description>Transactions between a co-operative society and its members were examined to determine whether unginned cotton supplied by members, then ginned, crushed and sold by the society, amounted to sales and purchases. The bye-laws showed that the society acted only on behalf of its members, did not acquire property in the goods, and any loss from the transactions was borne proportionately by the members. That structure was treated as consistent with agency and inconsistent with a sale. The society&#039;s registration also carried a condition against dealing on its own account, and there was no breach of that condition. The arrangement was therefore characterised as agency, not sale.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Jun 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156619</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>