<?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 (3) TMI 595 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159687</link>
    <description>Where no written contract or purchase order was produced, invoices and bills were treated as the best evidence of the parties&#039; arrangement. Because those documents separately showed the value of materials supplied and the service charges for repair work, the transaction was treated as severable rather than an indivisible works contract. The supply of goods was held to be the primary element, with repair activity merely incidental, so the turnover attributable to materials was taxable as sale turnover. The claim that the entire transaction was an exempt works contract was rejected, and the lower assessment was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Nov 2013 15:23:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=337607" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (3) TMI 595 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159687</link>
      <description>Where no written contract or purchase order was produced, invoices and bills were treated as the best evidence of the parties&#039; arrangement. Because those documents separately showed the value of materials supplied and the service charges for repair work, the transaction was treated as severable rather than an indivisible works contract. The supply of goods was held to be the primary element, with repair activity merely incidental, so the turnover attributable to materials was taxable as sale turnover. The claim that the entire transaction was an exempt works contract was rejected, and the lower assessment was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159687</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>