<?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>2003 (2) TMI 2 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=143</link>
    <description>Provision of telephone connections was treated as a transfer of the right to use goods because subscribers obtained enforceable access to the instruments and exchange system for consideration, bringing the arrangement within the extended meaning of sale under the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948. The Department of Telecommunications was therefore a dealer for rentals collected on such connections. Levy of service tax under the Finance Act, 1994 did not bar trade tax under the State Act, as the same transaction could be characterised differently under separate fiscal statutes. The arrangement was not an indivisible pure service contract immune from tax on the goods component, and the assessable element could be brought to tax.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Sep 2025 15:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=39607" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (2) TMI 2 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=143</link>
      <description>Provision of telephone connections was treated as a transfer of the right to use goods because subscribers obtained enforceable access to the instruments and exchange system for consideration, bringing the arrangement within the extended meaning of sale under the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948. The Department of Telecommunications was therefore a dealer for rentals collected on such connections. Levy of service tax under the Finance Act, 1994 did not bar trade tax under the State Act, as the same transaction could be characterised differently under separate fiscal statutes. The arrangement was not an indivisible pure service contract immune from tax on the goods component, and the assessable element could be brought to tax.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT / Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=143</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>