<?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>1975 (1) TMI 67 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150773</link>
    <description>A building contractor who purchased materials for use in construction or repair could be treated as a dealer if those purchases were made in the course of the business of buying goods under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. The Court read the definition of &quot;dealer&quot; and the purchase-tax scheme to require business activity involving buying and disposal with a profit-motive, and held that disposal is not confined to resale of the same goods. Materials indispensable to carrying on construction work, though consumed in execution of the work and used in immovable property, remained purchases in the course of business. The purchases were therefore liable to purchase tax, and the contractor was treated as a dealer in relation to those materials.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Jan 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 15:30:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=167813" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1975 (1) TMI 67 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150773</link>
      <description>A building contractor who purchased materials for use in construction or repair could be treated as a dealer if those purchases were made in the course of the business of buying goods under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. The Court read the definition of &quot;dealer&quot; and the purchase-tax scheme to require business activity involving buying and disposal with a profit-motive, and held that disposal is not confined to resale of the same goods. Materials indispensable to carrying on construction work, though consumed in execution of the work and used in immovable property, remained purchases in the course of business. The purchases were therefore liable to purchase tax, and the contractor was treated as a dealer in relation to those materials.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Jan 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150773</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>