<?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 (2) TMI 435 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155325</link>
    <description>Turnover from food, eatables and beverages supplied by hotels was taxable only where the substance of the transaction was a sale and any service element was merely incidental. The constitutional expansion of the definition of sale did not dispense with the need to examine the actual nature of the transaction on the facts. Because the assessing authorities relied only on the enlarged definition and did not determine whether the supplies were to outsiders, packet or parcel sales, or composite lodging-and-boarding charges, the assessment orders could not stand. The writ petitions were allowed, the assessments were quashed, and the matters were remanded for fresh consideration applying the dominant object test.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Feb 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Sep 2013 15:18:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=172356" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (2) TMI 435 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155325</link>
      <description>Turnover from food, eatables and beverages supplied by hotels was taxable only where the substance of the transaction was a sale and any service element was merely incidental. The constitutional expansion of the definition of sale did not dispense with the need to examine the actual nature of the transaction on the facts. Because the assessing authorities relied only on the enlarged definition and did not determine whether the supplies were to outsiders, packet or parcel sales, or composite lodging-and-boarding charges, the assessment orders could not stand. The writ petitions were allowed, the assessments were quashed, and the matters were remanded for fresh consideration applying the dominant object test.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Feb 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155325</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>