<?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>1955 (11) TMI 28 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127442</link>
    <description>Consideration paid for earthwork, dressing and turfing was treated as labour charges where no separate price for the earth was shown and the record suggested use of Government earth in closing a breach in the embankment; on that basis, Items 1 and 2 were not liable to sales tax, and the assessment had to be revised accordingly. By contrast, only the supply of rubbles and Sal Ballas was regarded as a transfer of goods. In the connected matter, the petitioner failed to produce material showing that the contract was purely one of labour or lacked any sale element, so that petition was rejected and the tax assessment was sustained to that extent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 21 Nov 1955 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 09 Mar 2013 10:16:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164319" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1955 (11) TMI 28 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127442</link>
      <description>Consideration paid for earthwork, dressing and turfing was treated as labour charges where no separate price for the earth was shown and the record suggested use of Government earth in closing a breach in the embankment; on that basis, Items 1 and 2 were not liable to sales tax, and the assessment had to be revised accordingly. By contrast, only the supply of rubbles and Sal Ballas was regarded as a transfer of goods. In the connected matter, the petitioner failed to produce material showing that the contract was purely one of labour or lacked any sale element, so that petition was rejected and the tax assessment was sustained to that extent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Nov 1955 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127442</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>