<?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 (5) TMI 841 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162712</link>
    <description>Tax deduction at source under section 27 of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 was treated as permissible only when confined to the taxable component of works contract bills. The provision was read down so that deduction could not be made from the entire gross bill amount and had to exclude labour, engineering and other service charges, declared goods, tax-paid goods and goods involved in inter-State trade. The provision was also construed with the charging and exemption provisions of the Act, and the contractor was entitled to the certificate contemplated by rule 35. The analysis further reflected equal treatment for similarly situated persons.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Mar 2014 11:06:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=348513" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (5) TMI 841 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162712</link>
      <description>Tax deduction at source under section 27 of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 was treated as permissible only when confined to the taxable component of works contract bills. The provision was read down so that deduction could not be made from the entire gross bill amount and had to exclude labour, engineering and other service charges, declared goods, tax-paid goods and goods involved in inter-State trade. The provision was also construed with the charging and exemption provisions of the Act, and the contractor was entitled to the certificate contemplated by rule 35. The analysis further reflected equal treatment for similarly situated persons.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162712</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>