<?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 (11) TMI 46 - TRIPURA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267237</link>
    <description>Supply and installation of set top boxes in a direct-to-home arrangement amounted to transfer of the right to use goods, because customers obtained effective control over identifiable boxes installed in their premises. That goods component was a deemed sale under Article 366(29A)(d) and was taxable under the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004. The contract was also divisible to that extent: where the sale element in a composite arrangement is separately discernible, State tax may be levied only on the goods component, while the signal transmission service remains outside State taxation. The petitioners therefore failed on the taxability of the set top box element.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2015 23:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=403883" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (11) TMI 46 - TRIPURA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267237</link>
      <description>Supply and installation of set top boxes in a direct-to-home arrangement amounted to transfer of the right to use goods, because customers obtained effective control over identifiable boxes installed in their premises. That goods component was a deemed sale under Article 366(29A)(d) and was taxable under the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004. The contract was also divisible to that extent: where the sale element in a composite arrangement is separately discernible, State tax may be levied only on the goods component, while the signal transmission service remains outside State taxation. The petitioners therefore failed on the taxability of the set top box element.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267237</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>