https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158873 The procurement agreement was construed as creating a principal-to-principal relationship, because the petitioner purchased goods on its own account, used its own funds, retained discretion over supplier and price, and bore responsibility for handling and delivery until handover; the label of "procurement agent" was therefore inconclusive. The writ court's power of interference under Article 226 was held to be limited, and no intervention was justified where the contract and evidence supported more than one view and there was no error of law, perversity, or absence of evidence. The challenge based on Rule 26(6)(b) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules also failed, as compliance had been found on appeal. en-us Mon, 25 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Nov 2013 17:43:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158873 The procurement agreement was construed as creating a principal-to-principal relationship, because the petitioner purchased goods on its own account, used its own funds, retained discretion over supplier and price, and bore responsibility for handling and delivery until handover; the label of "procurement agent" was therefore inconclusive. The writ court's power of interference under Article 226 was held to be limited, and no intervention was justified where the contract and evidence supported more than one view and there was no error of law, perversity, or absence of evidence. The challenge based on Rule 26(6)(b) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules also failed, as compliance had been found on appeal. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 25 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158873