<?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>2004 (7) TMI 633 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163464</link>
    <description>The High Court determined that the contract for the supply of M.S. fabricated juice heaters constituted a works contract, not merely a supply of goods. The court emphasized that the main object of the contract was the transfer of property in a chattel, as the equipment had to be erected and fitted at the purchaser&#039;s site to come into existence as a unit. The court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision regarding the first contract with a cooperative sugar factories federation but overturned the Tribunal&#039;s conclusion on the contract with the sugar mill, deeming it a works contract. The High Court partially allowed the revision, holding the dealer liable for sales tax only on sales to the cooperative sugar factories federation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Apr 2014 10:35:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=350972" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (7) TMI 633 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163464</link>
      <description>The High Court determined that the contract for the supply of M.S. fabricated juice heaters constituted a works contract, not merely a supply of goods. The court emphasized that the main object of the contract was the transfer of property in a chattel, as the equipment had to be erected and fitted at the purchaser&#039;s site to come into existence as a unit. The court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision regarding the first contract with a cooperative sugar factories federation but overturned the Tribunal&#039;s conclusion on the contract with the sugar mill, deeming it a works contract. The High Court partially allowed the revision, holding the dealer liable for sales tax only on sales to the cooperative sugar factories federation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163464</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>