<?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>1992 (10) TMI 251 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169284</link>
    <description>Octroi under section 113 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 was upheld, but only by reading it consistently with Entry 52 of List II, which permits taxation only on goods entering a local area for consumption, use or sale therein. On the facts, petroleum products moved from the depot to dealers outside the municipal limits were treated as re-export rather than a completed sale within the octroi area, because appropriation and delivery occurred outside the local area and transit risk remained with the appellant. The disputed goods were therefore not exigible to octroi, and the demand failed; however, no refund was ordered for duty already recovered.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Apr 2015 10:31:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=381494" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (10) TMI 251 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169284</link>
      <description>Octroi under section 113 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 was upheld, but only by reading it consistently with Entry 52 of List II, which permits taxation only on goods entering a local area for consumption, use or sale therein. On the facts, petroleum products moved from the depot to dealers outside the municipal limits were treated as re-export rather than a completed sale within the octroi area, because appropriation and delivery occurred outside the local area and transit risk remained with the appellant. The disputed goods were therefore not exigible to octroi, and the demand failed; however, no refund was ordered for duty already recovered.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169284</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>