<?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>1997 (8) TMI 460 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159194</link>
    <description>A contract for the design, manufacture and supply of titanium anodes, with separate supervision of installation, commissioning and recoating maintenance charges, was held to be a divisible contract rather than a single works contract. The court treated the separately fixed price for the anodes, together with the contractual stipulation that excise duty and sales tax were extra, as indicating that the parties intended distinct consideration for supply of goods and for ancillary services. On that reading, the supply element could not be merged into one composite works arrangement. The revision was therefore allowed in favour of the State.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Nov 2013 13:06:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=336070" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (8) TMI 460 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159194</link>
      <description>A contract for the design, manufacture and supply of titanium anodes, with separate supervision of installation, commissioning and recoating maintenance charges, was held to be a divisible contract rather than a single works contract. The court treated the separately fixed price for the anodes, together with the contractual stipulation that excise duty and sales tax were extra, as indicating that the parties intended distinct consideration for supply of goods and for ancillary services. On that reading, the supply element could not be merged into one composite works arrangement. The revision was therefore allowed in favour of the State.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159194</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>