<?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 (6) TMI 938 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164267</link>
    <description>Resale tax on payments made by a contractor to a registered sub-contractor for works execution was considered in light of section 6B of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act and article 366(29A)(b). The provision was construed as applying to second or subsequent sales of goods, but in a works contract the transfer of property in goods occurs through the sub-contractor when the goods are incorporated into the works. On that basis, the contractor does not retain goods capable of a separate resale, so tax could not be levied on the contractor for amounts paid to the sub-contractor. The earlier contrary view was held inapplicable after the Supreme Court&#039;s works contract ruling.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Nov 2014 11:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=353444" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (6) TMI 938 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164267</link>
      <description>Resale tax on payments made by a contractor to a registered sub-contractor for works execution was considered in light of section 6B of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act and article 366(29A)(b). The provision was construed as applying to second or subsequent sales of goods, but in a works contract the transfer of property in goods occurs through the sub-contractor when the goods are incorporated into the works. On that basis, the contractor does not retain goods capable of a separate resale, so tax could not be levied on the contractor for amounts paid to the sub-contractor. The earlier contrary view was held inapplicable after the Supreme Court&#039;s works contract ruling.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164267</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>