<?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 (5) TMI 401 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159217</link>
    <description>The supply of food and drinks by a hotel-cum-restaurant was treated as a sale of goods where the dominant object of the transaction was sale and the rendering of service was only incidental. The Tribunal relied on the charging pattern, trading account entries, service charges in some cases, and the dealer&#039;s own conduct in charging sales tax to conclude that the receipts formed taxable turnover. The absence of a finding that customers were prohibited from taking food away did not change the character of the transaction. The revisional challenge failed because the finding that the business was essentially a sale transaction involved no legal infirmity.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 May 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Nov 2013 15:42:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=336093" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (5) TMI 401 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159217</link>
      <description>The supply of food and drinks by a hotel-cum-restaurant was treated as a sale of goods where the dominant object of the transaction was sale and the rendering of service was only incidental. The Tribunal relied on the charging pattern, trading account entries, service charges in some cases, and the dealer&#039;s own conduct in charging sales tax to conclude that the receipts formed taxable turnover. The absence of a finding that customers were prohibited from taking food away did not change the character of the transaction. The revisional challenge failed because the finding that the business was essentially a sale transaction involved no legal infirmity.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 May 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159217</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>