<?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>2015 (5) TMI 171 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259297</link>
    <description>A composite works contract for design, construction, supply, erection, testing, commissioning, and five years&#039; operation and maintenance of a sewage treatment plant was classified under item/category 3 of Notification No.12(63)FD/Tax/2005-80 for levy of exemption fee. The classification turned on the dominant components of the contract, including installation of plant and machinery, sewage treatment work, and laying of pipelines with material. Concurrent factual findings by the assessing authority, appellate authority, and Tax Board were upheld because no segregation of activities or separate value allocation was shown, and no perversity, illegality, or impropriety was established. Exemption fee was therefore chargeable at 2.25%.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Mar 2016 17:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=383914" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (5) TMI 171 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259297</link>
      <description>A composite works contract for design, construction, supply, erection, testing, commissioning, and five years&#039; operation and maintenance of a sewage treatment plant was classified under item/category 3 of Notification No.12(63)FD/Tax/2005-80 for levy of exemption fee. The classification turned on the dominant components of the contract, including installation of plant and machinery, sewage treatment work, and laying of pipelines with material. Concurrent factual findings by the assessing authority, appellate authority, and Tax Board were upheld because no segregation of activities or separate value allocation was shown, and no perversity, illegality, or impropriety was established. Exemption fee was therefore chargeable at 2.25%.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259297</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>