<?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>1970 (4) TMI 145 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150010</link>
    <description>Supply of building materials by an employer to contractors for execution of its own construction work was not a sale where ownership in the materials remained with the employer and did not pass to the contractors. Charges added for supervision, storage, or later account adjustment did not alter the essential character of the transaction. The same principle applied even where there was no written agreement, because the materials continued to belong to the employer and the arrangement remained incidental to construction. Accordingly, the supplies were not liable to sales tax and did not make the employer a dealer in respect of those materials.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 May 2013 17:59:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=167051" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1970 (4) TMI 145 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150010</link>
      <description>Supply of building materials by an employer to contractors for execution of its own construction work was not a sale where ownership in the materials remained with the employer and did not pass to the contractors. Charges added for supervision, storage, or later account adjustment did not alter the essential character of the transaction. The same principle applied even where there was no written agreement, because the materials continued to belong to the employer and the arrangement remained incidental to construction. Accordingly, the supplies were not liable to sales tax and did not make the employer a dealer in respect of those materials.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150010</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>