<?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>2002 (12) TMI 586 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161745</link>
    <description>Rental receipts from leasing computer systems were held taxable under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, because the arrangement was a composite and contingent agreement for supply, installation and later hiring, not a completed transfer of the right to use goods on execution of the contract. The equipment was to be delivered and installed in Kerala, with rent becoming payable only after installation, and there was no concluded inter-State sale or movement of goods as an incident of sale from one State to another. Explanation (3B) to section 2(xxi) was applied only within its proper scope, and the transaction did not fall within any protected category such as an outside sale, inter-State sale, or sale in the course of import or export.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Dec 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Feb 2014 15:58:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=345017" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (12) TMI 586 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161745</link>
      <description>Rental receipts from leasing computer systems were held taxable under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, because the arrangement was a composite and contingent agreement for supply, installation and later hiring, not a completed transfer of the right to use goods on execution of the contract. The equipment was to be delivered and installed in Kerala, with rent becoming payable only after installation, and there was no concluded inter-State sale or movement of goods as an incident of sale from one State to another. Explanation (3B) to section 2(xxi) was applied only within its proper scope, and the transaction did not fall within any protected category such as an outside sale, inter-State sale, or sale in the course of import or export.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Dec 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161745</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>