<?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>1972 (3) TMI 79 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150326</link>
    <description>Contracts for supplying, cutting, transporting and stacking stone ballast were treated as composite supply arrangements whose dominant object was the delivery of ballast as goods. The court applied the real-intention test, looking to the contract terms, surrounding circumstances and nature of the operations, and held that work and labour were not the essence of the transaction. Stacking and cutting were only incidental to delivery, and the passing of title on delivery after stacking did not convert the arrangement into a works contract. The transactions were therefore sales of ballast and the turnover was liable to sales tax, not exempt as works contracts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Mar 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 May 2013 12:48:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=167367" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1972 (3) TMI 79 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150326</link>
      <description>Contracts for supplying, cutting, transporting and stacking stone ballast were treated as composite supply arrangements whose dominant object was the delivery of ballast as goods. The court applied the real-intention test, looking to the contract terms, surrounding circumstances and nature of the operations, and held that work and labour were not the essence of the transaction. Stacking and cutting were only incidental to delivery, and the passing of title on delivery after stacking did not convert the arrangement into a works contract. The transactions were therefore sales of ballast and the turnover was liable to sales tax, not exempt as works contracts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Mar 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150326</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>