<?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>1982 (1) TMI 174 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153264</link>
    <description>Supply of food and drinks by hotels and restaurants was assessed by applying the dominant-object test: if the transaction was chiefly a sale of food, with service only incidental, it could attract sales tax; if the substance was rendering service and food was merely incidental, it would not amount to sale. The character of each transaction depended on its factual setting, including counter sales, outdoor supply, or separate service charges, and had to be determined by the assessing authority under the relevant definition of sale. Writ petitions challenging this issue were held premature because the facts had not yet been determined.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Jan 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Jul 2013 15:50:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=170300" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1982 (1) TMI 174 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153264</link>
      <description>Supply of food and drinks by hotels and restaurants was assessed by applying the dominant-object test: if the transaction was chiefly a sale of food, with service only incidental, it could attract sales tax; if the substance was rendering service and food was merely incidental, it would not amount to sale. The character of each transaction depended on its factual setting, including counter sales, outdoor supply, or separate service charges, and had to be determined by the assessing authority under the relevant definition of sale. Writ petitions challenging this issue were held premature because the facts had not yet been determined.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Jan 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153264</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>