<?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>2012 (1) TMI 37 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208518</link>
    <description>A sale qualifies as a sale in the course of import under Section 5(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 only where the sale occasions the import or is effected by transfer of title before the goods cross the customs frontiers. Applying the test of integral connection or inextricable link, the Delhi HC found that the importer acted on a principal-to-principal basis, imported the goods in its own name, and had no privity of contract between the foreign supplier and the bank. The bank&#039;s purchase order did not create agency, and the goods could have been diverted to another buyer. The back-to-back arrangement therefore did not satisfy Section 5(2).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 02 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Sep 2014 17:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=181980" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (1) TMI 37 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208518</link>
      <description>A sale qualifies as a sale in the course of import under Section 5(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 only where the sale occasions the import or is effected by transfer of title before the goods cross the customs frontiers. Applying the test of integral connection or inextricable link, the Delhi HC found that the importer acted on a principal-to-principal basis, imported the goods in its own name, and had no privity of contract between the foreign supplier and the bank. The bank&#039;s purchase order did not create agency, and the goods could have been diverted to another buyer. The back-to-back arrangement therefore did not satisfy Section 5(2).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208518</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>