<?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>1964 (3) TMI 74 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128860</link>
    <description>A factory canteen maintained under a statutory obligation and run without profit may still fall within the expanded concept of business for sales tax purposes, because the absence of profit does not prevent the canteen transactions from being treated as sales; the employer was therefore treated as a dealer and the canteen sales were taxable. By contrast, a university dining-hall serving resident students on a fee basis was held to be incidental to the institution&#039;s educational function, with the charges treated as a fee rather than a true sale price, so the university was not a dealer and the dining-hall charges were not liable to sales tax.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Mar 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Apr 2013 14:05:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=165729" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1964 (3) TMI 74 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128860</link>
      <description>A factory canteen maintained under a statutory obligation and run without profit may still fall within the expanded concept of business for sales tax purposes, because the absence of profit does not prevent the canteen transactions from being treated as sales; the employer was therefore treated as a dealer and the canteen sales were taxable. By contrast, a university dining-hall serving resident students on a fee basis was held to be incidental to the institution&#039;s educational function, with the charges treated as a fee rather than a true sale price, so the university was not a dealer and the dining-hall charges were not liable to sales tax.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Mar 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128860</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>