<?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>1996 (7) TMI 528 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158902</link>
    <description>Transactions in the five tempo vans were treated as taxable turnover in the assessee&#039;s hands because the record showed an agency and dealership arrangement rather than a single inter-State sale by the manufacturer to customers. The correspondence and surrounding material indicated that the assessee was an authorised dealer, placed initial firm orders, maintained deposits, and handled customer delivery and service, with commission and related benefits supporting two distinct transactions: one between manufacturer and assessee, and another between assessee and customers. On that factual basis, the liability was considered under Explanation 5(a) to section 2(xxi) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, and the assessment challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 09 Nov 2013 12:34:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=335139" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (7) TMI 528 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158902</link>
      <description>Transactions in the five tempo vans were treated as taxable turnover in the assessee&#039;s hands because the record showed an agency and dealership arrangement rather than a single inter-State sale by the manufacturer to customers. The correspondence and surrounding material indicated that the assessee was an authorised dealer, placed initial firm orders, maintained deposits, and handled customer delivery and service, with commission and related benefits supporting two distinct transactions: one between manufacturer and assessee, and another between assessee and customers. On that factual basis, the liability was considered under Explanation 5(a) to section 2(xxi) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, and the assessment challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158902</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>