<?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>1998 (4) TMI 505 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159105</link>
    <description>Exchange of old gold for new ornaments with labour charges was treated as barter, not sale, because a sale requires transfer of property for money consideration and the phrase &quot;other valuable consideration&quot; was read as referring to monetary equivalents such as cash or deferred payment. On that basis, the transaction did not fall within the State sales tax definition of sale. As there was no underlying sale and no proved contractual movement of goods from one State to another, it also did not satisfy the ingredients of an inter-State sale under the Central Sales Tax framework. The assessee therefore succeeded and the Revenue&#039;s tax treatment failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 Nov 2013 16:42:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=335748" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (4) TMI 505 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159105</link>
      <description>Exchange of old gold for new ornaments with labour charges was treated as barter, not sale, because a sale requires transfer of property for money consideration and the phrase &quot;other valuable consideration&quot; was read as referring to monetary equivalents such as cash or deferred payment. On that basis, the transaction did not fall within the State sales tax definition of sale. As there was no underlying sale and no proved contractual movement of goods from one State to another, it also did not satisfy the ingredients of an inter-State sale under the Central Sales Tax framework. The assessee therefore succeeded and the Revenue&#039;s tax treatment failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159105</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>