<?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>1958 (6) TMI 3 -  ASSAM HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127817</link>
    <description>An indivisible building or works contract does not amount to a sale of goods under the ordinary law of sales where materials are supplied only in the course of construction and there is no separate agreement fixing their price. Taxation of such transfers is permissible only when the parties have made distinct contracts, one for labour or services and another for the sale of materials for consideration. On the stated facts, the contractor was carrying out a building contract simpliciter, so he was not liable to registration or assessment as a dealer merely because materials were used in execution. The attempted statutory expansion of &quot;sale&quot; and &quot;sale price&quot; to cover these transactions was therefore beyond legislative competence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Jun 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Mar 2013 15:23:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164692" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1958 (6) TMI 3 -  ASSAM HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127817</link>
      <description>An indivisible building or works contract does not amount to a sale of goods under the ordinary law of sales where materials are supplied only in the course of construction and there is no separate agreement fixing their price. Taxation of such transfers is permissible only when the parties have made distinct contracts, one for labour or services and another for the sale of materials for consideration. On the stated facts, the contractor was carrying out a building contract simpliciter, so he was not liable to registration or assessment as a dealer merely because materials were used in execution. The attempted statutory expansion of &quot;sale&quot; and &quot;sale price&quot; to cover these transactions was therefore beyond legislative competence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Jun 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127817</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>