<?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>2025 (9) TMI 1226 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778737</link>
    <description>Where a wheat contract makes endorsement of the bill of lading the stipulated mode of transfer, the transaction remains an agreement to sell until that condition is fulfilled or validly waived; on the facts described, the Bills of Lading were not shown to have been endorsed or delivered on high seas, so the sale was treated as completed at Mangalore within the market area. The market law scheme places primary fee liability on the buyer and collection-and-remittance obligations on the seller, but the same turnover cannot be subjected to duplicate levy on both sides. The separate levy on the seller for the same quantity was therefore unsustainable, while fee and penalty remained recoverable from the buyer and, for recovery, from either liable party.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Sep 2025 08:33:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=852162" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (9) TMI 1226 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778737</link>
      <description>Where a wheat contract makes endorsement of the bill of lading the stipulated mode of transfer, the transaction remains an agreement to sell until that condition is fulfilled or validly waived; on the facts described, the Bills of Lading were not shown to have been endorsed or delivered on high seas, so the sale was treated as completed at Mangalore within the market area. The market law scheme places primary fee liability on the buyer and collection-and-remittance obligations on the seller, but the same turnover cannot be subjected to duplicate levy on both sides. The separate levy on the seller for the same quantity was therefore unsustainable, while fee and penalty remained recoverable from the buyer and, for recovery, from either liable party.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778737</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>