<?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>1966 (9) TMI 90 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100224</link>
    <description>A contract to build, erect and furnish coach bodies on railway underframes was treated as an entire and indivisible works contract, not a sale. The agreement showed that materials brought to site and the coach bodies in progress remained the Railway&#039;s property during construction, and the risk allocation clause supported that ownership structure. Because the contract did not contemplate delivery of ready-made goods as a sale of coach bodies, sales tax was not leviable on the transaction. The earlier bus-body authority relied on by the appellant was distinguished on its facts. The High Court&#039;s view was upheld and the State&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 26 Sep 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 May 2014 16:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=137275" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1966 (9) TMI 90 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100224</link>
      <description>A contract to build, erect and furnish coach bodies on railway underframes was treated as an entire and indivisible works contract, not a sale. The agreement showed that materials brought to site and the coach bodies in progress remained the Railway&#039;s property during construction, and the risk allocation clause supported that ownership structure. Because the contract did not contemplate delivery of ready-made goods as a sale of coach bodies, sales tax was not leviable on the transaction. The earlier bus-body authority relied on by the appellant was distinguished on its facts. The High Court&#039;s view was upheld and the State&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Sep 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100224</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>