<?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>2008 (10) TMI 605 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163755</link>
    <description>A sale is an inter-State sale only when a contract of sale occasions the movement of goods from one State to another, and that movement is proved by material on record; mere billing in the name of out-of-State purchasers is insufficient. On the facts, the record showed only stray sales at the assessee&#039;s premises and no satisfactory proof that goods were transported from Chennai to Kerala, Karnataka or Andhra Pradesh pursuant to any sale contract, so Central sales tax could not be levied. Penalty also failed because the assessment foundation collapsed and there was no material of deliberate tax evasion, so the consequential levy could not stand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Nov 2014 15:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=351734" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (10) TMI 605 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163755</link>
      <description>A sale is an inter-State sale only when a contract of sale occasions the movement of goods from one State to another, and that movement is proved by material on record; mere billing in the name of out-of-State purchasers is insufficient. On the facts, the record showed only stray sales at the assessee&#039;s premises and no satisfactory proof that goods were transported from Chennai to Kerala, Karnataka or Andhra Pradesh pursuant to any sale contract, so Central sales tax could not be levied. Penalty also failed because the assessment foundation collapsed and there was no material of deliberate tax evasion, so the consequential levy could not stand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163755</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>