<?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>2016 (12) TMI 368 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335723</link>
    <description>Transfer of cotton and cotton yarn between two units of the same company, though holding separate TIN numbers, was not a sale under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 because sale requires transfer of property in goods from one person to another for consideration, and that element was absent. Separate registration did not make the units distinct legal entities, and inter-unit movement within the same corporate personality could not be taxed as a sale. The goods were used in manufacture of exempted cloth, and the reasoning on branch transfer and common legal personality supported the view that the taxability finding was untenable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Dec 2016 15:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=450928" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 368 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335723</link>
      <description>Transfer of cotton and cotton yarn between two units of the same company, though holding separate TIN numbers, was not a sale under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 because sale requires transfer of property in goods from one person to another for consideration, and that element was absent. Separate registration did not make the units distinct legal entities, and inter-unit movement within the same corporate personality could not be taxed as a sale. The goods were used in manufacture of exempted cloth, and the reasoning on branch transfer and common legal personality supported the view that the taxability finding was untenable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335723</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>