<?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 (6) TMI 559 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163783</link>
    <description>A sale is treated as inter-State only where the contract contains an express or implied stipulation for movement of goods from one State to another and the movement occurs in pursuance of that contract; the Revenue bears the burden of proving that a sale said to be local is actually inter-State. On the facts, the goods were delivered at Hyderabad, title passed on delivery there, and the later movement by the buyer or its agent to another State was not movement occasioned by the respondent&#039;s sale. The place of payment was immaterial, and the authorisations showed post-delivery dispatch for the purchaser&#039;s own use. The sales were therefore local and the tax demand was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Dec 2014 10:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=351762" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (6) TMI 559 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163783</link>
      <description>A sale is treated as inter-State only where the contract contains an express or implied stipulation for movement of goods from one State to another and the movement occurs in pursuance of that contract; the Revenue bears the burden of proving that a sale said to be local is actually inter-State. On the facts, the goods were delivered at Hyderabad, title passed on delivery there, and the later movement by the buyer or its agent to another State was not movement occasioned by the respondent&#039;s sale. The place of payment was immaterial, and the authorisations showed post-delivery dispatch for the purchaser&#039;s own use. The sales were therefore local and the tax demand was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163783</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>