<?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 (11) TMI 856 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164671</link>
    <description>A consignment or stock transfer may be accepted where Form F, sale pattials, invoices and related dispatch documents support the movement of goods to an agent&#039;s godown, and same-day sale by the agent does not by itself convert the transaction into an inter-State sale. Under section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the dealer bears the burden of proving the declaration, but the Revenue must still point to material discrediting the supporting records. Where the appellate authorities have made concurrent factual findings on evidence, writ interference under article 226 is not justified unless those findings are perverse or unsupported by material.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Oct 2014 14:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=354271" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (11) TMI 856 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164671</link>
      <description>A consignment or stock transfer may be accepted where Form F, sale pattials, invoices and related dispatch documents support the movement of goods to an agent&#039;s godown, and same-day sale by the agent does not by itself convert the transaction into an inter-State sale. Under section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the dealer bears the burden of proving the declaration, but the Revenue must still point to material discrediting the supporting records. Where the appellate authorities have made concurrent factual findings on evidence, writ interference under article 226 is not justified unless those findings are perverse or unsupported by material.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164671</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>