<?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 (1) TMI 1671 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172133</link>
    <description>Where contractual terms made delivery, weighment, quality verification and final acceptance dependent on the buyer&#039;s premises, the sale was treated as completed at the mill gate within the market area, not as an outside inter-State sale, so mandi fee remained leviable. The buyer was regarded as a trader engaged in purchase for manufacturing use, but the sellers&#039; trader status was not proved; accordingly, the residuary market-fee provision applied and liability fell on the purchaser. A circular dated 11 November 1998 was held inapplicable because it concerned post-processing produce, not levy on primary arrival. The levy was therefore sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Aug 2015 19:29:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=392892" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (1) TMI 1671 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172133</link>
      <description>Where contractual terms made delivery, weighment, quality verification and final acceptance dependent on the buyer&#039;s premises, the sale was treated as completed at the mill gate within the market area, not as an outside inter-State sale, so mandi fee remained leviable. The buyer was regarded as a trader engaged in purchase for manufacturing use, but the sellers&#039; trader status was not proved; accordingly, the residuary market-fee provision applied and liability fell on the purchaser. A circular dated 11 November 1998 was held inapplicable because it concerned post-processing produce, not levy on primary arrival. The levy was therefore sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172133</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>