<?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 (7) TMI 594 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235436</link>
    <description>High sea sale treatment under the Central Sales Tax Act failed because the assessee did not prove that the transactions were genuine sales made while the goods were still on the high seas. The Tribunal&#039;s factual findings that the bill of entry copies were interpolated, differed from the originals filed with Customs, and were endorsed only after clearance were not displaced. Even if a bill of entry may be treated as a document of title, the claim also failed because the continuity of import was broken and the bulk import was not specifically appropriated to the alleged purchasers. The challenge was essentially factual, and the revisions were dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2014 16:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=197846" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (7) TMI 594 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235436</link>
      <description>High sea sale treatment under the Central Sales Tax Act failed because the assessee did not prove that the transactions were genuine sales made while the goods were still on the high seas. The Tribunal&#039;s factual findings that the bill of entry copies were interpolated, differed from the originals filed with Customs, and were endorsed only after clearance were not displaced. Even if a bill of entry may be treated as a document of title, the claim also failed because the continuity of import was broken and the bulk import was not specifically appropriated to the alleged purchasers. The challenge was essentially factual, and the revisions were dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235436</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>