<?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>2018 (3) TMI 1365 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357662</link>
    <description>Supply of cement, steel, bricks and similar materials by a Government department to contractors, with the cost deducted from running bills, was held to constitute a taxable sale under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. The Court applied the statutory definition of sale, which includes transfer of property in goods involved in execution of a works contract, and treated the contractual supply arrangement as more than an internal adjustment. Because the Government is a dealer under the Act and the admitted clause showed transfer of materials for the work, the supply attracted tax liability. The Tribunal was held to have erred in treating the transaction as non-taxable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Jul 2019 12:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=514929" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (3) TMI 1365 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357662</link>
      <description>Supply of cement, steel, bricks and similar materials by a Government department to contractors, with the cost deducted from running bills, was held to constitute a taxable sale under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. The Court applied the statutory definition of sale, which includes transfer of property in goods involved in execution of a works contract, and treated the contractual supply arrangement as more than an internal adjustment. Because the Government is a dealer under the Act and the admitted clause showed transfer of materials for the work, the supply attracted tax liability. The Tribunal was held to have erred in treating the transaction as non-taxable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357662</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>