<?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 (12) TMI 20 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128878</link>
    <description>An arrangement for extraction, screening, transport and supply of sand was treated as a works contract rather than a sale because the quarry lease remained in the project&#039;s name and title to the sand never passed to the contractor. Contractual terms on labour, tools, transport, inspection, testing, royalty, ground rent and advances were held insufficient to transfer ownership, so sales tax was not attracted. The writ remedy was also held maintainable despite the availability of an appellate route, because revision had already been pursued and the challenge raised an error of law apparent on the record rather than disputed facts. The assessment and penalty orders were quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Dec 1963 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Apr 2013 16:59:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=165747" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1963 (12) TMI 20 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128878</link>
      <description>An arrangement for extraction, screening, transport and supply of sand was treated as a works contract rather than a sale because the quarry lease remained in the project&#039;s name and title to the sand never passed to the contractor. Contractual terms on labour, tools, transport, inspection, testing, royalty, ground rent and advances were held insufficient to transfer ownership, so sales tax was not attracted. The writ remedy was also held maintainable despite the availability of an appellate route, because revision had already been pursued and the challenge raised an error of law apparent on the record rather than disputed facts. The assessment and penalty orders were quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Dec 1963 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128878</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>