<?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>1995 (3) TMI 434 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157818</link>
    <description>Monthly rent charged by an electricity supplier for consumer-installed meters was treated as consideration for a transfer of the right to use goods, bringing the charge within the statutory definition of sale. Although the supplier retained inspection, testing, repair, removal and maintenance powers under the Electricity Act and Rules, those supervisory controls did not prevent the consumer from using the meter for its intended purpose of recording consumption and verifying bills. The charge was fixed as hire or rent and not shown to be a mere reimbursement of maintenance expenses, so the contention that it was only a maintenance charge was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Oct 2013 18:41:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174841" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (3) TMI 434 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157818</link>
      <description>Monthly rent charged by an electricity supplier for consumer-installed meters was treated as consideration for a transfer of the right to use goods, bringing the charge within the statutory definition of sale. Although the supplier retained inspection, testing, repair, removal and maintenance powers under the Electricity Act and Rules, those supervisory controls did not prevent the consumer from using the meter for its intended purpose of recording consumption and verifying bills. The charge was fixed as hire or rent and not shown to be a mere reimbursement of maintenance expenses, so the contention that it was only a maintenance charge was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157818</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>