<?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>2014 (12) TMI 998 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254655</link>
    <description>A forest lease for bamboo did not amount to a completed sale of goods under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 because the bamboo was not identified, ascertained, or in a deliverable state at the time of the agreement, and further conditions such as silvicultural work, weighment, permits, extraction charges, and removal restrictions had to be satisfied before property could pass. The same integrated arrangement also covered departmentally extracted bamboo, so severance occurred before, and not under, any contract of sale. The agreement was instead a profit a prendre, conferring an indivisible right to enter forest land and take natural produce as a benefit arising out of land. As such, the amounts payable were not turnover of goods and were outside sales tax treatment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 28 Dec 2014 18:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=372261" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (12) TMI 998 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254655</link>
      <description>A forest lease for bamboo did not amount to a completed sale of goods under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 because the bamboo was not identified, ascertained, or in a deliverable state at the time of the agreement, and further conditions such as silvicultural work, weighment, permits, extraction charges, and removal restrictions had to be satisfied before property could pass. The same integrated arrangement also covered departmentally extracted bamboo, so severance occurred before, and not under, any contract of sale. The agreement was instead a profit a prendre, conferring an indivisible right to enter forest land and take natural produce as a benefit arising out of land. As such, the amounts payable were not turnover of goods and were outside sales tax treatment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254655</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>