<?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>2002 (7) TMI 757 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160790</link>
    <description>Movement of goods from the Trichy unit to the Chittoor branch was treated as an inter-State sale, not a genuine branch transfer, because the Chittoor branch functioned only as an intermediary before onward sale to Balaji Mill Stores. Identical goods, quantity and price, the short interval between receipt and resale, and the absence of dealings with any other purchaser at Chittoor supported the inference that the movement was made pursuant to Balaji Mill Stores&#039; orders. The incorrect factual assumption about separate partnership entities did not displace that conclusion, and the turnover was therefore rightly taxed as inter-State sales.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Jul 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Dec 2013 16:50:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=340612" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (7) TMI 757 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160790</link>
      <description>Movement of goods from the Trichy unit to the Chittoor branch was treated as an inter-State sale, not a genuine branch transfer, because the Chittoor branch functioned only as an intermediary before onward sale to Balaji Mill Stores. Identical goods, quantity and price, the short interval between receipt and resale, and the absence of dealings with any other purchaser at Chittoor supported the inference that the movement was made pursuant to Balaji Mill Stores&#039; orders. The incorrect factual assumption about separate partnership entities did not displace that conclusion, and the turnover was therefore rightly taxed as inter-State sales.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Jul 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160790</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>