<?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>2009 (11) TMI 818 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158659</link>
    <description>Goods moved to agents&#039; godowns in other States were treated as a consignment sale or stock transfer, not an inter-State sale, where the assessee supported its claim with Form-F declarations, sale pattials, invoices and consignment sale notes. Same-day or next-day resale by the agents was held insufficient, by itself, to displace that documentation absent incriminating evidence of advance arrangements or other contrary material. The writ court was also noted to have limited scope to interfere with concurrent factual findings; absent perversity, unsupported conclusions or patent legal error, such findings were left undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Oct 2014 14:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=334300" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (11) TMI 818 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158659</link>
      <description>Goods moved to agents&#039; godowns in other States were treated as a consignment sale or stock transfer, not an inter-State sale, where the assessee supported its claim with Form-F declarations, sale pattials, invoices and consignment sale notes. Same-day or next-day resale by the agents was held insufficient, by itself, to displace that documentation absent incriminating evidence of advance arrangements or other contrary material. The writ court was also noted to have limited scope to interfere with concurrent factual findings; absent perversity, unsupported conclusions or patent legal error, such findings were left undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158659</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>