<?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 (10) TMI 965 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165424</link>
    <description>Purchases of tendu leaves under the tender and agreement framework were held not to be inter-State sales because the statutory scheme created regulatory controls, not a contractual requirement to move the goods outside the State. The tender terms covered delivery, payment, storage, transit permits, taxes, and statutory compliance, but did not expressly or impliedly obligate inter-State movement as part of the sale. Since the post-delivery movement was independent of the contract and not the proximate result of the sale, the transaction did not satisfy the test under section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The sales were therefore intra-State sales, and liability under the State enactments applied.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2014 17:42:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=358826" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (10) TMI 965 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165424</link>
      <description>Purchases of tendu leaves under the tender and agreement framework were held not to be inter-State sales because the statutory scheme created regulatory controls, not a contractual requirement to move the goods outside the State. The tender terms covered delivery, payment, storage, transit permits, taxes, and statutory compliance, but did not expressly or impliedly obligate inter-State movement as part of the sale. Since the post-delivery movement was independent of the contract and not the proximate result of the sale, the transaction did not satisfy the test under section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The sales were therefore intra-State sales, and liability under the State enactments applied.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165424</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>