<?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 (6) TMI 1043 - SIKKIM HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183416</link>
    <description>Contractual supply of cement, steel and explosives to contractors at fixed rates, with the goods to be consumed in execution of the work and their value recovered from contractor bills, fell within the inclusive definition of sale under Section 2(m) of the Sikkim Sales Tax Act, 1983. The Court treated the arrangement as a deemed sale, covering transfer of property in goods involved in a works contract and transfer of the right to use goods. The petitioner&#039;s reliance on bailment principles was rejected because the agreements showed taxable supply rather than mere custody, and the cited authority on absence of transfer of the right to use goods was inapplicable. The assessment was therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Jun 2016 17:29:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=430929" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (6) TMI 1043 - SIKKIM HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183416</link>
      <description>Contractual supply of cement, steel and explosives to contractors at fixed rates, with the goods to be consumed in execution of the work and their value recovered from contractor bills, fell within the inclusive definition of sale under Section 2(m) of the Sikkim Sales Tax Act, 1983. The Court treated the arrangement as a deemed sale, covering transfer of property in goods involved in a works contract and transfer of the right to use goods. The petitioner&#039;s reliance on bailment principles was rejected because the agreements showed taxable supply rather than mere custody, and the cited authority on absence of transfer of the right to use goods was inapplicable. The assessment was therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183416</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>