<?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 986 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164374</link>
    <description>Materials incidentally consumed by a dealer in executing an indivisible works contract, where the customer supplies the principal material and no transfer of property in those incidental inputs is established, do not attract purchase tax under section 13AA of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. Because the purchase tax itself was not leviable, the consequential interest under section 36(3)(b) also could not survive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Oct 2014 12:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=353697" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (4) TMI 986 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164374</link>
      <description>Materials incidentally consumed by a dealer in executing an indivisible works contract, where the customer supplies the principal material and no transfer of property in those incidental inputs is established, do not attract purchase tax under section 13AA of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. Because the purchase tax itself was not leviable, the consequential interest under section 36(3)(b) also could not survive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164374</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>