<?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>1968 (2) TMI 113 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148469</link>
    <description>A contract for installation of an automatic sprinkler and fire alarm system was treated as an indivisible works contract, not a divisible arrangement for sale of materials and separate labour. The dominant object was the completion and installation of a functioning plant through skilled fitting, erection on site, technical design, and adjustment of plans, while clauses on delivery, retention of property, fire risk, and removal on non-payment were only protective stipulations. The use of standardised or imported materials did not alter the essential character of the bargain. Where the main intention is execution of work and materials are only incidental, the transaction is not a separate sale of goods as chattels.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Feb 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Apr 2013 09:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166509" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1968 (2) TMI 113 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148469</link>
      <description>A contract for installation of an automatic sprinkler and fire alarm system was treated as an indivisible works contract, not a divisible arrangement for sale of materials and separate labour. The dominant object was the completion and installation of a functioning plant through skilled fitting, erection on site, technical design, and adjustment of plans, while clauses on delivery, retention of property, fire risk, and removal on non-payment were only protective stipulations. The use of standardised or imported materials did not alter the essential character of the bargain. Where the main intention is execution of work and materials are only incidental, the transaction is not a separate sale of goods as chattels.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Feb 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148469</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>