<?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>2017 (7) TMI 877 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345765</link>
    <description>VAT could not be levied on terminalling services without first determining whether the same transaction had already suffered service tax, because a composite arrangement cannot be artificially severed beyond the recognised constitutional and statutory scheme. The assessment was incomplete on this issue and required reconsideration of the effect of prior service tax payment. The finding that the terminalling and storage arrangement amounted to a transfer of right to use goods was also not upheld, as the agreement&#039;s non-exclusive character and the nature of the facility needed proper factual and legal examination. The assessment under the head of terminalling services was set aside and remanded for fresh consideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Mar 2018 13:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=483083" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (7) TMI 877 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345765</link>
      <description>VAT could not be levied on terminalling services without first determining whether the same transaction had already suffered service tax, because a composite arrangement cannot be artificially severed beyond the recognised constitutional and statutory scheme. The assessment was incomplete on this issue and required reconsideration of the effect of prior service tax payment. The finding that the terminalling and storage arrangement amounted to a transfer of right to use goods was also not upheld, as the agreement&#039;s non-exclusive character and the nature of the facility needed proper factual and legal examination. The assessment under the head of terminalling services was set aside and remanded for fresh consideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345765</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>