<?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>1998 (10) TMI 524 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159987</link>
    <description>A statutory concessional sales tax scheme for Government purchases required production of Form D, and the purchasing department had to issue that certificate where the transaction fell within the notified class. Contractual silence on the certificate could not defeat the statutory entitlement, because the notification controlled the tax treatment of goods transferred in execution of a works contract under the expanded meaning of sale in Article 366(29A). Withholding Form D was treated as contrary to the scheme and exposed the contractor to a higher tax rate, so the assessment had to be revisited on the basis of the certificate and the concessional rate applied.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Oct 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Dec 2013 14:33:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=338333" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (10) TMI 524 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159987</link>
      <description>A statutory concessional sales tax scheme for Government purchases required production of Form D, and the purchasing department had to issue that certificate where the transaction fell within the notified class. Contractual silence on the certificate could not defeat the statutory entitlement, because the notification controlled the tax treatment of goods transferred in execution of a works contract under the expanded meaning of sale in Article 366(29A). Withholding Form D was treated as contrary to the scheme and exposed the contractor to a higher tax rate, so the assessment had to be revisited on the basis of the certificate and the concessional rate applied.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Oct 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159987</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>