<?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>1963 (4) TMI 26 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128594</link>
    <description>The contract had to be read as a whole to determine its real character, and the court treated the quarrying directions as incidental safeguards for quality and source rather than the substance of the bargain. Because the tender required the assessee to produce and deliver specified materials at fixed unit rates at predetermined spots, and remuneration was payable only on supply, the agreement was characterised as a contract of sale and supply, not a works or quarrying contract. The exemption notification for quarrying contracts was therefore inapplicable because it covered a different class of transactions. The revision petition failed and the assessment was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Apr 1963 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 27 Jul 2013 11:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=165463" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1963 (4) TMI 26 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128594</link>
      <description>The contract had to be read as a whole to determine its real character, and the court treated the quarrying directions as incidental safeguards for quality and source rather than the substance of the bargain. Because the tender required the assessee to produce and deliver specified materials at fixed unit rates at predetermined spots, and remuneration was payable only on supply, the agreement was characterised as a contract of sale and supply, not a works or quarrying contract. The exemption notification for quarrying contracts was therefore inapplicable because it covered a different class of transactions. The revision petition failed and the assessment was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Apr 1963 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128594</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>