<?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>1983 (12) TMI 260 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102153</link>
    <description>The arrangement for manufacture and supply of MIG engines to the Government was treated as a works contract rather than a sale liable to Central sales tax. The decisive factors were that the Government&#039;s entrustment letter, procurement and payment terms, and billing procedure showed continuing Government ownership of the materials, equipment and finished engines. The assessee functioned only as an executing agency for manufacture and assembly on behalf of the Government, and the pricing and profit element were regarded as accounting features of the entrustment. Applying the distinction between a contract for sale and a contract for work and labour, the absence of any transfer of property from the assessee to the Government meant no sales tax was leviable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Dec 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 May 2014 16:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=139202" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (12) TMI 260 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102153</link>
      <description>The arrangement for manufacture and supply of MIG engines to the Government was treated as a works contract rather than a sale liable to Central sales tax. The decisive factors were that the Government&#039;s entrustment letter, procurement and payment terms, and billing procedure showed continuing Government ownership of the materials, equipment and finished engines. The assessee functioned only as an executing agency for manufacture and assembly on behalf of the Government, and the pricing and profit element were regarded as accounting features of the entrustment. Applying the distinction between a contract for sale and a contract for work and labour, the absence of any transfer of property from the assessee to the Government meant no sales tax was leviable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Dec 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102153</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>