<?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>1996 (7) TMI 482 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104059</link>
    <description>Photocopying transactions for consideration were held to be contracts of work or service, not sales of goods, because the dominant object was duplication of the customer&#039;s document and the use of paper and ink was merely incidental. Property in the copied sheet passing during performance did not convert the arrangement into a sale of chattel as chattel. Applying the distinction between a sale and a works contract, the transaction fell outside the sales tax charging provision and sales tax was not exigible.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Oct 2014 17:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=141098" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (7) TMI 482 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104059</link>
      <description>Photocopying transactions for consideration were held to be contracts of work or service, not sales of goods, because the dominant object was duplication of the customer&#039;s document and the use of paper and ink was merely incidental. Property in the copied sheet passing during performance did not convert the arrangement into a sale of chattel as chattel. Applying the distinction between a sale and a works contract, the transaction fell outside the sales tax charging provision and sales tax was not exigible.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104059</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>