https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264949 The High Court upheld the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal's decision that the contract in question was divisible, contrary to the Revenue's contention that it should be treated as a composite works contract. The Court dismissed the Revenue's petitions and directed the refund of taxes collected based on the revisional order, emphasizing the distinct parts of the contract and the parties' intention to treat it as a contract for supply for operational and tax purposes. The Court rejected the Revenue's stay application, affirming the Tribunal's decision on the contract's divisible nature. en-us Thu, 16 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 04 Oct 2015 12:41:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264949 The High Court upheld the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal's decision that the contract in question was divisible, contrary to the Revenue's contention that it should be treated as a composite works contract. The Court dismissed the Revenue's petitions and directed the refund of taxes collected based on the revisional order, emphasizing the distinct parts of the contract and the parties' intention to treat it as a contract for supply for operational and tax purposes. The Court rejected the Revenue's stay application, affirming the Tribunal's decision on the contract's divisible nature. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 16 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264949