<?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 (1) TMI 410 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158953</link>
    <description>Section 6D of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 was treated as a valid deeming provision grounded in article 366(29A)(b) and not as overriding constitutional limits; where a deemed sale is otherwise protected under section 27(1)(a), that immunity continues, so the provision itself was not unconstitutional. For a sale to qualify as in the course of import, there must be an integrated nexus between the import and the particular contract sale, with the imported goods earmarked for that transaction and not divertible elsewhere. On the stated facts, the zinc was not shown to be tied to the works contract, so the deemed sale remained taxable under section 6D and did not enjoy section 27(1)(a) protection.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Jan 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Nov 2013 16:31:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=335281" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (1) TMI 410 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158953</link>
      <description>Section 6D of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 was treated as a valid deeming provision grounded in article 366(29A)(b) and not as overriding constitutional limits; where a deemed sale is otherwise protected under section 27(1)(a), that immunity continues, so the provision itself was not unconstitutional. For a sale to qualify as in the course of import, there must be an integrated nexus between the import and the particular contract sale, with the imported goods earmarked for that transaction and not divertible elsewhere. On the stated facts, the zinc was not shown to be tied to the works contract, so the deemed sale remained taxable under section 6D and did not enjoy section 27(1)(a) protection.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Jan 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158953</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>