<?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 (1) TMI 588 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163517</link>
    <description>A contract that required supply and stacking of river boulders from Arunachal Pradesh to sites in Assam was treated as occasioning movement of goods between States; on that basis, the transactions fell within inter-State trade under Section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and outside Assam&#039;s taxing power. As the sales were not taxable under the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993, deduction of tax at source from contractors&#039; bills under Section 27 lacked a statutory basis and the works contract characterisation under Section 2(38) was rejected. The impugned deduction actions were set aside with consequential refund relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Apr 2014 17:21:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=351075" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (1) TMI 588 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163517</link>
      <description>A contract that required supply and stacking of river boulders from Arunachal Pradesh to sites in Assam was treated as occasioning movement of goods between States; on that basis, the transactions fell within inter-State trade under Section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and outside Assam&#039;s taxing power. As the sales were not taxable under the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993, deduction of tax at source from contractors&#039; bills under Section 27 lacked a statutory basis and the works contract characterisation under Section 2(38) was rejected. The impugned deduction actions were set aside with consequential refund relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163517</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>