<?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>1999 (5) TMI 583 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159627</link>
    <description>A contract for design, manufacture, supply, erection and commissioning of a swimming pool water purification plant was treated as a sale of goods because its dominant purpose was supply of detachable plant components, with only incidental civil work for connection to the existing system; the transaction was therefore taxable under the Act, not a works contract. The motor control centre was classified as electrical goods under item 41 of the First Schedule because it was an electrical switch box, not merely an accessory or part of a machine. The revision order was sustained on both disputed turnovers and the challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 Nov 2013 15:31:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=337459" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (5) TMI 583 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159627</link>
      <description>A contract for design, manufacture, supply, erection and commissioning of a swimming pool water purification plant was treated as a sale of goods because its dominant purpose was supply of detachable plant components, with only incidental civil work for connection to the existing system; the transaction was therefore taxable under the Act, not a works contract. The motor control centre was classified as electrical goods under item 41 of the First Schedule because it was an electrical switch box, not merely an accessory or part of a machine. The revision order was sustained on both disputed turnovers and the challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159627</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>