<?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>1954 (4) TMI 30 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127290</link>
    <description>The constitutional entry for &quot;sale of goods&quot; could not be expanded to cover an entire works contract, because such a contract is a single, indivisible agreement for work and labour and the materials used do not become separately sold chattels; the Madras General Sales Tax Amendment Act, 1947 was therefore ultra vires to that extent and the levy on works-contract turnover failed. Supply of foodgrains to workmen, recovered from wages as a welfare arrangement, was not shown to be a commercial activity carried on with profit motive, so it did not constitute business by a dealer and was not liable to sales tax. The disputed turnovers were consequently excluded from assessment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Apr 1954 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Jul 2017 12:44:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164167" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1954 (4) TMI 30 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127290</link>
      <description>The constitutional entry for &quot;sale of goods&quot; could not be expanded to cover an entire works contract, because such a contract is a single, indivisible agreement for work and labour and the materials used do not become separately sold chattels; the Madras General Sales Tax Amendment Act, 1947 was therefore ultra vires to that extent and the levy on works-contract turnover failed. Supply of foodgrains to workmen, recovered from wages as a welfare arrangement, was not shown to be a commercial activity carried on with profit motive, so it did not constitute business by a dealer and was not liable to sales tax. The disputed turnovers were consequently excluded from assessment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Apr 1954 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127290</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>