<?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 (8) TMI 1083 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164234</link>
    <description>Supply of track ballast under a railway purchase order was treated as a sale of goods, not a civil work or works contract, because the order was essentially for supply and delivery, with stacking only incidental to verification and delivery. On that basis, the claim for compounded taxation under section 7(7) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act failed. The amount charged for stacking and delivery was included in turnover, because sums incurred in respect of the goods before delivery formed part of the sale price under the statutory definition of turnover. The revision therefore failed on the principal contention that the transaction was a works contract.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Nov 2014 15:16:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=353409" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (8) TMI 1083 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164234</link>
      <description>Supply of track ballast under a railway purchase order was treated as a sale of goods, not a civil work or works contract, because the order was essentially for supply and delivery, with stacking only incidental to verification and delivery. On that basis, the claim for compounded taxation under section 7(7) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act failed. The amount charged for stacking and delivery was included in turnover, because sums incurred in respect of the goods before delivery formed part of the sale price under the statutory definition of turnover. The revision therefore failed on the principal contention that the transaction was a works contract.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164234</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>