<?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 (8) TMI 871 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346813</link>
    <description>Repairs, reconstruction and maintenance of buildings were treated as falling within the ordinary and contextual meaning of &quot;construction contract&quot; under the MVAT notification scheme, rather than being confined to new building work only. The interpretation was read with the statutory scheme, prior trade circulars and the established departmental understanding under the earlier works contract regime, with emphasis on substance over form and the absence of any contrary notification or clear statutory exclusion. On that basis, the concessional rate under Section 42(3) was available, and the refusal to give prospective effect to the determination under Section 56 was considered unsustainable in light of the settled interpretation and existing practice.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Aug 2018 14:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=486594" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (8) TMI 871 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346813</link>
      <description>Repairs, reconstruction and maintenance of buildings were treated as falling within the ordinary and contextual meaning of &quot;construction contract&quot; under the MVAT notification scheme, rather than being confined to new building work only. The interpretation was read with the statutory scheme, prior trade circulars and the established departmental understanding under the earlier works contract regime, with emphasis on substance over form and the absence of any contrary notification or clear statutory exclusion. On that basis, the concessional rate under Section 42(3) was available, and the refusal to give prospective effect to the determination under Section 56 was considered unsustainable in light of the settled interpretation and existing practice.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346813</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>