<?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>1976 (9) TMI 164 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151591</link>
    <description>Under the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947, taxing authorities and the State had no independent right to maintain a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 against the Board of Revenue&#039;s order, because the statutory appellate and reference scheme vested those remedies in the dealer and made the departmental order binding on the department. The quarry arrangement for collection, breaking and supply of stones was treated as a works contract, not a sale, because the contractor had no freedom to appropriate or resell the stones as owner and the substance of the arrangement was execution of work for the Public Works Department. The transaction was therefore outside the charging provision and not liable to sales tax.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Sep 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Jun 2013 16:53:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=168629" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1976 (9) TMI 164 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151591</link>
      <description>Under the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947, taxing authorities and the State had no independent right to maintain a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 against the Board of Revenue&#039;s order, because the statutory appellate and reference scheme vested those remedies in the dealer and made the departmental order binding on the department. The quarry arrangement for collection, breaking and supply of stones was treated as a works contract, not a sale, because the contractor had no freedom to appropriate or resell the stones as owner and the substance of the arrangement was execution of work for the Public Works Department. The transaction was therefore outside the charging provision and not liable to sales tax.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Sep 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151591</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>