<?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>1978 (11) TMI 146 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152841</link>
    <description>Contracts for quarrying, sizing, transporting and stacking stone ballast for railways were held to be sales of goods, not works contracts, because the dominant object was delivery of ballast for a price and the labour was merely incidental. The court applied the settled test under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act that a works contract requires a principal obligation to carry out construction, fitting, improvement or repair; those elements were absent on the contract terms. The railway had no control over the quarrying or manufacture of the ballast, and the general conditions did not change the essential character of the bargain. Sales tax liability was therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Nov 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Jul 2013 17:05:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=169878" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1978 (11) TMI 146 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152841</link>
      <description>Contracts for quarrying, sizing, transporting and stacking stone ballast for railways were held to be sales of goods, not works contracts, because the dominant object was delivery of ballast for a price and the labour was merely incidental. The court applied the settled test under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act that a works contract requires a principal obligation to carry out construction, fitting, improvement or repair; those elements were absent on the contract terms. The railway had no control over the quarrying or manufacture of the ballast, and the general conditions did not change the essential character of the bargain. Sales tax liability was therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Nov 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152841</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>