<?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>1996 (8) TMI 488 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158900</link>
    <description>A contract for manufacture and supply of bricks and tiles was treated as a works contract, not a sale liable to sales tax, where the terms of the agreement, surrounding circumstances and the parties&#039; intention showed that the dominant object was performance of work. The transaction did not involve a transfer of property in goods for a price by the contractor, because the Government supplied the materials and retained ownership of the raw materials and finished goods throughout. The court noted that where any transfer of property is merely incidental to execution of the work, the arrangement is not a sale. The assessee therefore succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 09 Nov 2013 12:31:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=335129" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (8) TMI 488 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158900</link>
      <description>A contract for manufacture and supply of bricks and tiles was treated as a works contract, not a sale liable to sales tax, where the terms of the agreement, surrounding circumstances and the parties&#039; intention showed that the dominant object was performance of work. The transaction did not involve a transfer of property in goods for a price by the contractor, because the Government supplied the materials and retained ownership of the raw materials and finished goods throughout. The court noted that where any transfer of property is merely incidental to execution of the work, the arrangement is not a sale. The assessee therefore succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158900</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>