<?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>2006 (10) TMI 389 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162685</link>
    <description>Goods used in execution of a taxable civil works contract, including stone boulders used for dam construction, remained taxable under the works contract levy because the contract fell within the notification governing such contracts and the tax attached to the value of goods involved in execution. The claim that the boulders had already suffered tax on purchase from the Forest Corporation failed on the record. The concessional rate under section 3-G was unavailable for the period before 17 March 1992 because, at that stage, it did not override the levy under section 3-F. The tax levy was therefore sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2014 16:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=348428" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (10) TMI 389 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162685</link>
      <description>Goods used in execution of a taxable civil works contract, including stone boulders used for dam construction, remained taxable under the works contract levy because the contract fell within the notification governing such contracts and the tax attached to the value of goods involved in execution. The claim that the boulders had already suffered tax on purchase from the Forest Corporation failed on the record. The concessional rate under section 3-G was unavailable for the period before 17 March 1992 because, at that stage, it did not override the levy under section 3-F. The tax levy was therefore sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162685</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>