<?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>2016 (12) TMI 1305 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336660</link>
    <description>Supply of spare parts by an authorised dealer during the warranty period was treated as a taxable sale because the replacement parts came from the dealer&#039;s stock and were transferred for valuable consideration through credit notes issued by the manufacturer. The Court treated the consumer replacement and the manufacturer&#039;s reimbursement as separate commercial transactions, and held that the warranty obligation rested on the manufacturer, not the dealer. On that basis, the transaction fell within the statutory definition of sale under the U.P. VAT Act and was liable to tax; the contention that it was a free service outside the tax net was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Mar 2018 12:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=453065" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 1305 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336660</link>
      <description>Supply of spare parts by an authorised dealer during the warranty period was treated as a taxable sale because the replacement parts came from the dealer&#039;s stock and were transferred for valuable consideration through credit notes issued by the manufacturer. The Court treated the consumer replacement and the manufacturer&#039;s reimbursement as separate commercial transactions, and held that the warranty obligation rested on the manufacturer, not the dealer. On that basis, the transaction fell within the statutory definition of sale under the U.P. VAT Act and was liable to tax; the contention that it was a free service outside the tax net was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336660</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>