<?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>1993 (2) TMI 291 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157093</link>
    <description>A contract for supply of hydraulically pressed tiles was held to be a contract of sale, not a works contract, because the agreement required delivery of a fixed quantity at a fixed price, with ownership passing only on conformity with prescribed tests and departmental approval. Clauses on rejection, supervision, quality control, and the supplier&#039;s obligation to provide materials, machinery, and labour were consistent with a sale of manufactured goods as chattel. The contract&#039;s reference to sales tax did not change its legal character. The Tribunal was also right that determination of sale price was outside the scope of section 62, as the point had not been properly pressed or canvassed below.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Feb 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Sep 2013 12:28:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174118" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (2) TMI 291 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157093</link>
      <description>A contract for supply of hydraulically pressed tiles was held to be a contract of sale, not a works contract, because the agreement required delivery of a fixed quantity at a fixed price, with ownership passing only on conformity with prescribed tests and departmental approval. Clauses on rejection, supervision, quality control, and the supplier&#039;s obligation to provide materials, machinery, and labour were consistent with a sale of manufactured goods as chattel. The contract&#039;s reference to sales tax did not change its legal character. The Tribunal was also right that determination of sale price was outside the scope of section 62, as the point had not been properly pressed or canvassed below.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Feb 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157093</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>