<?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 (3) TMI 517 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159180</link>
    <description>An arrangement for IMFL manufacture was treated as a works contract, not a sale, where the distillery blended, bottled, reduced strength, stored and delivered the product under the assessee&#039;s supervision and specifications. The assessee supplied the essence, retained the brand property, and the distillery was bound to act for and on behalf of the assessee without any right to deal with the finished product independently. Because the processed goods were appropriated exclusively to the assessee and the manufacturing activity was carried on on its behalf, the transaction did not amount to a true sale for tax purposes, and the second-sale treatment was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Nov 2013 11:41:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=336056" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (3) TMI 517 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159180</link>
      <description>An arrangement for IMFL manufacture was treated as a works contract, not a sale, where the distillery blended, bottled, reduced strength, stored and delivered the product under the assessee&#039;s supervision and specifications. The assessee supplied the essence, retained the brand property, and the distillery was bound to act for and on behalf of the assessee without any right to deal with the finished product independently. Because the processed goods were appropriated exclusively to the assessee and the manufacturing activity was carried on on its behalf, the transaction did not amount to a true sale for tax purposes, and the second-sale treatment was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159180</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>