<?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>2009 (7) TMI 1160 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164064</link>
    <description>A single and indivisible job-work contract for manufacturing and supplying an assembly-flange did not amount to a sale under the Bombay Sales Tax Act because the customer supplied the main raw material and the contractor&#039;s own material passed only incidentally in execution of the work. That issue was decided against the Revenue. However, the contractor&#039;s own goods used in the works contract were treated as having their property transferred to the customer during execution, so that component was taxable as a sale under the special works contract legislation following the Forty-sixth Amendment. That issue was decided in favour of the Revenue. The reference failed because the principal question under the general sales tax law did not arise.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Nov 2014 15:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=352541" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (7) TMI 1160 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164064</link>
      <description>A single and indivisible job-work contract for manufacturing and supplying an assembly-flange did not amount to a sale under the Bombay Sales Tax Act because the customer supplied the main raw material and the contractor&#039;s own material passed only incidentally in execution of the work. That issue was decided against the Revenue. However, the contractor&#039;s own goods used in the works contract were treated as having their property transferred to the customer during execution, so that component was taxable as a sale under the special works contract legislation following the Forty-sixth Amendment. That issue was decided in favour of the Revenue. The reference failed because the principal question under the general sales tax law did not arise.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164064</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>