<?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>1988 (5) TMI 353 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155182</link>
    <description>Exemption for sales of wrappers, cartons and labels to registered purchasers depended on whether the buyers&#039; registration certificates authorised purchase of those packing materials for the stated purpose; because the record was incomplete and the purchasers&#039; registration entries were not fully examined, the matter was remitted for fresh consideration and, where justified, declarations in the prescribed form. Labour charges shown for printing were not excluded from taxable turnover because the dealer failed to prove separate and divisible contracts for printing and supply; in the absence of agreements, work orders or account books, the transaction was treated as composite and the charges remained taxable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 May 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Sep 2013 11:25:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=172213" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (5) TMI 353 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155182</link>
      <description>Exemption for sales of wrappers, cartons and labels to registered purchasers depended on whether the buyers&#039; registration certificates authorised purchase of those packing materials for the stated purpose; because the record was incomplete and the purchasers&#039; registration entries were not fully examined, the matter was remitted for fresh consideration and, where justified, declarations in the prescribed form. Labour charges shown for printing were not excluded from taxable turnover because the dealer failed to prove separate and divisible contracts for printing and supply; in the absence of agreements, work orders or account books, the transaction was treated as composite and the charges remained taxable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 May 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155182</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>