<?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 (2) TMI 849 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164100</link>
    <description>Sale of vehicles was treated as an inter-State sale where the surrounding facts showed that the cars were meant to move out of Karnataka pursuant to the sale contract. Although delivery was claimed to have occurred locally at Bangalore, the vehicles were soon taken to Chennai or Pondicherry, later registered there, and financed through institutions in those places. Applying the settled test that a sale is inter-State when the movement of goods from one State to another is occasioned by the contract and forms an incident of the sale, the transactions were held to fall within Central sales tax. The concurrent factual findings below were supported by cogent reasons.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Dec 2014 17:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=352577" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (2) TMI 849 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164100</link>
      <description>Sale of vehicles was treated as an inter-State sale where the surrounding facts showed that the cars were meant to move out of Karnataka pursuant to the sale contract. Although delivery was claimed to have occurred locally at Bangalore, the vehicles were soon taken to Chennai or Pondicherry, later registered there, and financed through institutions in those places. Applying the settled test that a sale is inter-State when the movement of goods from one State to another is occasioned by the contract and forms an incident of the sale, the transactions were held to fall within Central sales tax. The concurrent factual findings below were supported by cogent reasons.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164100</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>