<?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 (7) TMI 646 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160309</link>
    <description>Section 25-A of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 was unconstitutional to the extent it authorised advance deduction of tax at source from works-contract bills on transfers of property in goods falling within inter-State trade or commerce, outside the State, import transactions, or declared goods. The Court held that, after the Forty-sixth Amendment, such deemed sales remain subject to article 286 and the limits in sections 3, 4, 5, 14 and 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, so a State cannot collect tax in advance on transactions beyond its competence. The provision was also invalid insofar as it reached labour charges and other service components, because only the value of goods involved in the contract is taxable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Jul 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 Dec 2013 13:27:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=339336" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (7) TMI 646 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160309</link>
      <description>Section 25-A of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 was unconstitutional to the extent it authorised advance deduction of tax at source from works-contract bills on transfers of property in goods falling within inter-State trade or commerce, outside the State, import transactions, or declared goods. The Court held that, after the Forty-sixth Amendment, such deemed sales remain subject to article 286 and the limits in sections 3, 4, 5, 14 and 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, so a State cannot collect tax in advance on transactions beyond its competence. The provision was also invalid insofar as it reached labour charges and other service components, because only the value of goods involved in the contract is taxable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Jul 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160309</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>