<?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 (5) TMI 1549 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200422</link>
    <description>A mosaic tile laying agreement was treated as a works contract where the dealer maintained separate material accounts and the assessment lacked tangible support for dividing the contract value into a taxable sale of tiles. The true character of the contract was held to depend on the substance of the transaction, not the mode of payment alone, and labour and service deductions remained applicable under the statutory scheme. On the sand turnover used in execution of the works contract, tax was sustained only for periods outside the notified exemption, while the exempt period was excluded from assessment. The revisional challenge therefore failed, subject only to the limited liability upheld for sand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Mar 2018 08:07:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=514995" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (5) TMI 1549 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200422</link>
      <description>A mosaic tile laying agreement was treated as a works contract where the dealer maintained separate material accounts and the assessment lacked tangible support for dividing the contract value into a taxable sale of tiles. The true character of the contract was held to depend on the substance of the transaction, not the mode of payment alone, and labour and service deductions remained applicable under the statutory scheme. On the sand turnover used in execution of the works contract, tax was sustained only for periods outside the notified exemption, while the exempt period was excluded from assessment. The revisional challenge therefore failed, subject only to the limited liability upheld for sand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200422</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>