<?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>1945 (2) TMI 28 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292738</link>
    <description>Groundnut sales and purchases were held to be completed within the notified area because the contracts required delivery at Cuddalore, buyer inspection at their godowns, and acceptance only after verification of weight, quality and condition; the goods were not unconditionally appropriated when handed to the railway, so market fees were attracted under Section 11. The market committee&#039;s power to levy fees was also treated as independent of any maximum annual fee under Section 18(2)(iv), because Section 11 imposed a mandatory charging provision and the absence of a fixed ceiling did not extinguish that statutory authority.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Feb 1945 00:00:00 +0630</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Jan 2021 13:21:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=632240" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1945 (2) TMI 28 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292738</link>
      <description>Groundnut sales and purchases were held to be completed within the notified area because the contracts required delivery at Cuddalore, buyer inspection at their godowns, and acceptance only after verification of weight, quality and condition; the goods were not unconditionally appropriated when handed to the railway, so market fees were attracted under Section 11. The market committee&#039;s power to levy fees was also treated as independent of any maximum annual fee under Section 18(2)(iv), because Section 11 imposed a mandatory charging provision and the absence of a fixed ceiling did not extinguish that statutory authority.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Feb 1945 00:00:00 +0630</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292738</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>