<?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>1994 (3) TMI 363 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157571</link>
    <description>A transaction for specially designed printed receipt books, prepared to the customer&#039;s specifications and lacking general commercial marketability, is treated as work and labour rather than a sale of goods. The decisive factor is the dominant object of the contract: where specialised printing is undertaken under a composite job-work charge and any passing of paper or ink is merely incidental to execution, there is no transfer of a chattel as such. The Bombay HC applied the settled distinction between a contract of sale and a contract for work and labour and concluded that the supply was a works contract outside the sales tax charging provision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Mar 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Oct 2013 12:45:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174594" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (3) TMI 363 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157571</link>
      <description>A transaction for specially designed printed receipt books, prepared to the customer&#039;s specifications and lacking general commercial marketability, is treated as work and labour rather than a sale of goods. The decisive factor is the dominant object of the contract: where specialised printing is undertaken under a composite job-work charge and any passing of paper or ink is merely incidental to execution, there is no transfer of a chattel as such. The Bombay HC applied the settled distinction between a contract of sale and a contract for work and labour and concluded that the supply was a works contract outside the sales tax charging provision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Mar 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157571</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>