<?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>2013 (1) TMI 551 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220446</link>
    <description>Sale of khair wood through open auction may qualify as an inter-State sale where the surrounding materials show that the transaction occasioned movement of goods from one State to another. The decisive test is the nexus between the sale and the inter-State movement under section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, not merely the fact that the auction concluded at the fall of the hammer. Invoices and transport documents can support that conclusion and bring the transaction within the concessional notification dated 26.12.2000, subject to proof that the goods were meant for use at the factory in Uttar Pradesh. Refund of earlier tax payments was declined because relief was directed to operate prospectively.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 Jan 2013 07:23:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=193812" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (1) TMI 551 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220446</link>
      <description>Sale of khair wood through open auction may qualify as an inter-State sale where the surrounding materials show that the transaction occasioned movement of goods from one State to another. The decisive test is the nexus between the sale and the inter-State movement under section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, not merely the fact that the auction concluded at the fall of the hammer. Invoices and transport documents can support that conclusion and bring the transaction within the concessional notification dated 26.12.2000, subject to proof that the goods were meant for use at the factory in Uttar Pradesh. Refund of earlier tax payments was declined because relief was directed to operate prospectively.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220446</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>