<?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 (12) TMI 459 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162765</link>
    <description>Lease rentals and hire charges under lease and hire-purchase arrangements were held taxable in Kerala where the goods were acquired after the agreement and delivered to the lessee or hirer in the State. The Court treated the arrangement as involving separate steps: the agreement, then the purchase and delivery of goods, with the taxable event arising on delivery for use. It also rejected the plea that the transactions were inter-State, since any inter-State movement related only to the petitioner&#039;s purchase from the supplier and not to the lease or hire-purchase transaction with the customer. The levy was therefore sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Mar 2014 18:29:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=348619" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (12) TMI 459 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162765</link>
      <description>Lease rentals and hire charges under lease and hire-purchase arrangements were held taxable in Kerala where the goods were acquired after the agreement and delivered to the lessee or hirer in the State. The Court treated the arrangement as involving separate steps: the agreement, then the purchase and delivery of goods, with the taxable event arising on delivery for use. It also rejected the plea that the transactions were inter-State, since any inter-State movement related only to the petitioner&#039;s purchase from the supplier and not to the lease or hire-purchase transaction with the customer. The levy was therefore sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162765</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>