<?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>1984 (11) TMI 306 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154341</link>
    <description>A contract for fabrication, supply, erection and installation of reformer tube assemblies was treated as a works contract because the agreement, read as a whole, required integrated design, fabrication, supply, erection and installation at the buyer&#039;s premises under detailed specifications, tests and inspections. The materials did not pass as completed goods on despatch, since essential components and fitting work were completed only during installation, and the lump-sum and staged payment structure reflected execution of the whole contract rather than a separate sale price and work charges. No severable sale of goods was shown; the agreement was therefore essentially a works contract involving supply of materials.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 Nov 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Aug 2013 15:40:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=171374" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (11) TMI 306 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154341</link>
      <description>A contract for fabrication, supply, erection and installation of reformer tube assemblies was treated as a works contract because the agreement, read as a whole, required integrated design, fabrication, supply, erection and installation at the buyer&#039;s premises under detailed specifications, tests and inspections. The materials did not pass as completed goods on despatch, since essential components and fitting work were completed only during installation, and the lump-sum and staged payment structure reflected execution of the whole contract rather than a separate sale price and work charges. No severable sale of goods was shown; the agreement was therefore essentially a works contract involving supply of materials.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Nov 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154341</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>