<?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 1391 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268582</link>
    <description>A contract for supply, installation and maintenance of computer systems, printing of smart cards and allied data services was held to be a service arrangement, not a sale of goods. The smart cards were specially designed for the department, the department retained exclusive intellectual property rights, and the cards had no independent commercial utility outside that arrangement. As the cards were only a medium for embedding and delivering data, their value was incidental to the predominant service element. Applying the settled distinction that a sale requires a distinct transfer of goods for a price, the transaction was not exigible to VAT.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Jun 2016 14:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=406841" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (11) TMI 1391 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268582</link>
      <description>A contract for supply, installation and maintenance of computer systems, printing of smart cards and allied data services was held to be a service arrangement, not a sale of goods. The smart cards were specially designed for the department, the department retained exclusive intellectual property rights, and the cards had no independent commercial utility outside that arrangement. As the cards were only a medium for embedding and delivering data, their value was incidental to the predominant service element. Applying the settled distinction that a sale requires a distinct transfer of goods for a price, the transaction was not exigible to VAT.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268582</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>