<?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 (10) TMI 24 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127486</link>
    <description>A composite building or repair works contract, where materials are inseparably embedded in the completed work, is not treated as a sale of goods unless there is a distinct transfer of property in those materials for a price. On that reasoning, the turnover attributable to materials in such contracts could not be subjected to sales tax under the Hyderabad General Sales Tax Act, 1950, and the deeming provision in the turnover definition with Rule 5(3) was held invalid to that extent. The contractor was also not regarded as a dealer or casual trader merely by executing such works contracts, because the transactions did not amount to independent trading in goods.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Oct 1955 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 May 2014 15:10:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164363" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1955 (10) TMI 24 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127486</link>
      <description>A composite building or repair works contract, where materials are inseparably embedded in the completed work, is not treated as a sale of goods unless there is a distinct transfer of property in those materials for a price. On that reasoning, the turnover attributable to materials in such contracts could not be subjected to sales tax under the Hyderabad General Sales Tax Act, 1950, and the deeming provision in the turnover definition with Rule 5(3) was held invalid to that extent. The contractor was also not regarded as a dealer or casual trader merely by executing such works contracts, because the transactions did not amount to independent trading in goods.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Oct 1955 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127486</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>