<?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>2010 (8) TMI 824 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164194</link>
    <description>Sales of goods from Mumbai to a purchaser&#039;s Vapi and Silvasa units were treated as inter-State sales because section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 applies where the contract occasions movement of goods from one State to another. The decisive test is the direct nexus between the sale and the movement, not the place where property in the goods passes. On the stated facts, the purchase order, invoices showing dispatch from Bombay to Vapi, vehicle details, C forms, MODVAT claim at Vapi, and actual delivery in Gujarat established that the movement was integral to the contract. The Tribunal&#039;s view that the sales were local was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Sep 2014 08:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=352837" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (8) TMI 824 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164194</link>
      <description>Sales of goods from Mumbai to a purchaser&#039;s Vapi and Silvasa units were treated as inter-State sales because section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 applies where the contract occasions movement of goods from one State to another. The decisive test is the direct nexus between the sale and the movement, not the place where property in the goods passes. On the stated facts, the purchase order, invoices showing dispatch from Bombay to Vapi, vehicle details, C forms, MODVAT claim at Vapi, and actual delivery in Gujarat established that the movement was integral to the contract. The Tribunal&#039;s view that the sales were local was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164194</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>