<?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>2010 (4) TMI 976 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164189</link>
    <description>A sub-contractor executing works under a contract was treated as falling within the expression &quot;contractor&quot; under section 2(9) of the Assam General Sales Tax Act. Deduction of sub-contract turnover under Rule 14(1)(c) of the Assam General Sales Tax Rules, 1993 was available only on production of the prescribed proof of tax payment by the sub-contractor. Because the petitioner executed the sub-contract work but failed to establish entitlement to exclusion of that turnover, the authorities correctly assessed the amount as taxable in the petitioner&#039;s hands. The assessment and appellate orders were therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Oct 2014 14:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=352832" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (4) TMI 976 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164189</link>
      <description>A sub-contractor executing works under a contract was treated as falling within the expression &quot;contractor&quot; under section 2(9) of the Assam General Sales Tax Act. Deduction of sub-contract turnover under Rule 14(1)(c) of the Assam General Sales Tax Rules, 1993 was available only on production of the prescribed proof of tax payment by the sub-contractor. Because the petitioner executed the sub-contract work but failed to establish entitlement to exclusion of that turnover, the authorities correctly assessed the amount as taxable in the petitioner&#039;s hands. The assessment and appellate orders were therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164189</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>