<?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>2005 (4) TMI 580 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176014</link>
    <description>Contractual terms governed when property in goods passed under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. Because the purchase conditions kept the goods at the supplier&#039;s risk until delivery, made delivery complete only after successful testing and issuance of the taking-over certificate, and treated receipt at site as the date of delivery, title was intended to pass only after those events. Section 19 operated according to that contractual intention, and Section 22 did not assist because the contract expressly postponed transfer of property. The certificate and departmental letter asserting Government ownership did not change the legal position, so the goods had not vested in the Government when they entered the municipal limits and octroi exemption was unavailable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Dec 2015 19:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=408410" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (4) TMI 580 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176014</link>
      <description>Contractual terms governed when property in goods passed under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. Because the purchase conditions kept the goods at the supplier&#039;s risk until delivery, made delivery complete only after successful testing and issuance of the taking-over certificate, and treated receipt at site as the date of delivery, title was intended to pass only after those events. Section 19 operated according to that contractual intention, and Section 22 did not assist because the contract expressly postponed transfer of property. The certificate and departmental letter asserting Government ownership did not change the legal position, so the goods had not vested in the Government when they entered the municipal limits and octroi exemption was unavailable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176014</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>