<?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>2003 (1) TMI 667 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161443</link>
    <description>A cooperative society running a canteen under contract was treated as carrying on business and making taxable sales when it purchased raw materials, prepared food, and supplied meals against coupons for consideration. The statutory duty of the factory occupier to provide canteen facilities did not change the character of the society&#039;s separate commercial arrangement, because the society was not itself discharging that duty. The broad definition of &quot;business&quot; under the Assam General Sales Tax Act covered the activity, and the transfer of property in food for consideration was held to be a sale liable to sales tax. The assessment and related tax demand were upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Jan 2014 18:28:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=344055" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (1) TMI 667 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161443</link>
      <description>A cooperative society running a canteen under contract was treated as carrying on business and making taxable sales when it purchased raw materials, prepared food, and supplied meals against coupons for consideration. The statutory duty of the factory occupier to provide canteen facilities did not change the character of the society&#039;s separate commercial arrangement, because the society was not itself discharging that duty. The broad definition of &quot;business&quot; under the Assam General Sales Tax Act covered the activity, and the transfer of property in food for consideration was held to be a sale liable to sales tax. The assessment and related tax demand were upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161443</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>