<?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>1969 (8) TMI 31 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39958</link>
    <description>Supply of building materials to contractors at agreed rates, with the price adjusted against sums due under the contracts, satisfied the elements of sale under sales tax law because it involved transfer of property in goods for consideration in the course of contractual performance; the point was decided against the company. Penalty for failure to register as a dealer was not justified because such penalty is attracted only where default is deliberate, contumacious, dishonest, or in conscious disregard of a statutory obligation, and the company acted under an honest belief that registration was unnecessary; this point was decided in its favour. The question whether the company was a dealer was left open and the matter was remitted for a supplementary statement of facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Aug 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 10 Aug 2014 21:58:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=78504" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1969 (8) TMI 31 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39958</link>
      <description>Supply of building materials to contractors at agreed rates, with the price adjusted against sums due under the contracts, satisfied the elements of sale under sales tax law because it involved transfer of property in goods for consideration in the course of contractual performance; the point was decided against the company. Penalty for failure to register as a dealer was not justified because such penalty is attracted only where default is deliberate, contumacious, dishonest, or in conscious disregard of a statutory obligation, and the company acted under an honest belief that registration was unnecessary; this point was decided in its favour. The question whether the company was a dealer was left open and the matter was remitted for a supplementary statement of facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Aug 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39958</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>