<?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>2012 (11) TMI 1054 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167872</link>
    <description>A tender-cum-auction sale of sandalwood concluded, confirmed and delivered within Tamil Nadu was treated as an intra-State sale, because the auction, confirmation, payment and depot delivery all took place in the State under accepted tender conditions. The document explains that the bidders had agreed to pay value added tax at the notified rate, and that the statutory definitions under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 supported local taxation. Subsequent movement of the goods to another State at the purchaser&#039;s instance did not alter the character of the sale, so the VAT demand was valid and the inter-State sale claim failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Jan 2015 12:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=373001" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (11) TMI 1054 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167872</link>
      <description>A tender-cum-auction sale of sandalwood concluded, confirmed and delivered within Tamil Nadu was treated as an intra-State sale, because the auction, confirmation, payment and depot delivery all took place in the State under accepted tender conditions. The document explains that the bidders had agreed to pay value added tax at the notified rate, and that the statutory definitions under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 supported local taxation. Subsequent movement of the goods to another State at the purchaser&#039;s instance did not alter the character of the sale, so the VAT demand was valid and the inter-State sale claim failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167872</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>