<?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 (7) TMI 914 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164305</link>
    <description>Endorsement of railway receipts while goods were in transit from one State to another constituted an inter-State sale under section 3(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, because the transfer of documents of title completed the sale during movement. Where the railway receipts were first taken in the seller&#039;s name and then endorsed to the purchaser before delivery, the transaction was treated as a sale in the course of inter-State movement rather than a completed local sale followed by a separate dispatch. Earlier similar bilti-cut transactions were treated on the same footing, while authorities cited by the dealer were distinguished on their facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2014 19:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=353538" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (7) TMI 914 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164305</link>
      <description>Endorsement of railway receipts while goods were in transit from one State to another constituted an inter-State sale under section 3(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, because the transfer of documents of title completed the sale during movement. Where the railway receipts were first taken in the seller&#039;s name and then endorsed to the purchaser before delivery, the transaction was treated as a sale in the course of inter-State movement rather than a completed local sale followed by a separate dispatch. Earlier similar bilti-cut transactions were treated on the same footing, while authorities cited by the dealer were distinguished on their facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164305</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>