<?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>1990 (2) TMI 280 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156070</link>
    <description>Erection and hiring of temporary pandals, pavilions and rostrums by decorators was treated as a composite service of erection and dismantling, not a transfer of the right to use goods, because the customer obtained no independent right over the underlying materials; the activity was therefore not sale and not liable to sales tax. Separate hire of movable articles such as tables, chairs, carpets and crockery was distinguished as a hiring of goods capable of falling within the amended definition of sale, and was taxable where the statutory turnover threshold was met. The challenge succeeded only for pandals and similar structures, while taxability of other hired movable goods was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Feb 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Sep 2013 18:13:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=173097" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (2) TMI 280 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156070</link>
      <description>Erection and hiring of temporary pandals, pavilions and rostrums by decorators was treated as a composite service of erection and dismantling, not a transfer of the right to use goods, because the customer obtained no independent right over the underlying materials; the activity was therefore not sale and not liable to sales tax. Separate hire of movable articles such as tables, chairs, carpets and crockery was distinguished as a hiring of goods capable of falling within the amended definition of sale, and was taxable where the statutory turnover threshold was met. The challenge succeeded only for pandals and similar structures, while taxability of other hired movable goods was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Feb 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156070</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>