<?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>2009 (2) TMI 753 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163884</link>
    <description>A sale is treated as inter-State only where the contract of sale occasions movement of goods from one State to another. On the stated facts, the scooters were ordered from the manufacturer, identified by engine and chassis numbers, and moved from Uttar Pradesh to Punjab pursuant to that contract, so the transaction was characterised as inter-State sale. No contract of appropriation or local sale through the intermediary at Jalandhar was proved, as the record showed direct dealings with the manufacturer. The place-of-delivery argument was rejected because delivery through an intermediary does not displace the test of movement caused by the sale contract.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2014 11:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=352109" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (2) TMI 753 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163884</link>
      <description>A sale is treated as inter-State only where the contract of sale occasions movement of goods from one State to another. On the stated facts, the scooters were ordered from the manufacturer, identified by engine and chassis numbers, and moved from Uttar Pradesh to Punjab pursuant to that contract, so the transaction was characterised as inter-State sale. No contract of appropriation or local sale through the intermediary at Jalandhar was proved, as the record showed direct dealings with the manufacturer. The place-of-delivery argument was rejected because delivery through an intermediary does not displace the test of movement caused by the sale contract.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163884</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>