<?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>2012 (8) TMI 940 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174737</link>
    <description>Site-based ducting fabrication was treated as a taxable sale of a distinct commercial commodity, not an indivisible works contract, because the materials were separately supplied and charged, invoices showed a separate material component, and the process of cutting, fitting and assembling G.I. sheets produced a new product that could not be restored to its original form. On that factual basis, the claim that the work escaped assessment merely because it was executed at the customer&#039;s site was rejected. Relief under section 3B of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act was also denied, and the turnover from ducting works was held taxable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Oct 2015 11:56:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=401943" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (8) TMI 940 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174737</link>
      <description>Site-based ducting fabrication was treated as a taxable sale of a distinct commercial commodity, not an indivisible works contract, because the materials were separately supplied and charged, invoices showed a separate material component, and the process of cutting, fitting and assembling G.I. sheets produced a new product that could not be restored to its original form. On that factual basis, the claim that the work escaped assessment merely because it was executed at the customer&#039;s site was rejected. Relief under section 3B of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act was also denied, and the turnover from ducting works was held taxable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174737</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>