<?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 (7) TMI 615 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162834</link>
    <description>Goods supplied under a works-related contract at agreed rates, with their value adjusted in running bills and unused stock required to be returned, were treated as a transfer of property in goods for consideration and therefore a taxable sale rather than a merely incidental supply for execution of work. Applying the substance-over-form test and the parties&#039; intention, the court held the cement and steel transactions fell within the statutory definition of sale. Royalty recovered from the contractor for use of river bed material was also treated as part of the taxable turnover on the factual arrangement examined, and the challenge to that component failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 Mar 2014 11:09:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=348839" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (7) TMI 615 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162834</link>
      <description>Goods supplied under a works-related contract at agreed rates, with their value adjusted in running bills and unused stock required to be returned, were treated as a transfer of property in goods for consideration and therefore a taxable sale rather than a merely incidental supply for execution of work. Applying the substance-over-form test and the parties&#039; intention, the court held the cement and steel transactions fell within the statutory definition of sale. Royalty recovered from the contractor for use of river bed material was also treated as part of the taxable turnover on the factual arrangement examined, and the challenge to that component failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162834</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>