<?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 (1) TMI 1112 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164486</link>
    <description>Where a dealer had the exclusive right to get plastic moulded chairs manufactured through an SSI unit and market them under its brand name, it was treated as the brand name holder for sales tax purposes under section 5(2) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The manufacturer&#039;s sale to the dealer was not the first taxable sale; the dealer&#039;s subsequent sale in Kerala was the deemed first sale exigible to tax. The claim that the brand name belonged to a sister concern and was only licensed to the dealer did not alter the position, because the dealer alone controlled manufacture and sale under the brand. The State&#039;s revision succeeded and the reassessments stood.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2015 11:50:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=353927" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (1) TMI 1112 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164486</link>
      <description>Where a dealer had the exclusive right to get plastic moulded chairs manufactured through an SSI unit and market them under its brand name, it was treated as the brand name holder for sales tax purposes under section 5(2) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The manufacturer&#039;s sale to the dealer was not the first taxable sale; the dealer&#039;s subsequent sale in Kerala was the deemed first sale exigible to tax. The claim that the brand name belonged to a sister concern and was only licensed to the dealer did not alter the position, because the dealer alone controlled manufacture and sale under the brand. The State&#039;s revision succeeded and the reassessments stood.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164486</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>