<?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 (7) TMI 972 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363664</link>
    <description>A composite brewery lease involving land, building, plant and machinery was treated as including a separable transfer of the right to use plant and machinery as goods. The Court applied Article 366(29-A)(d) and Entry 54 of List II to hold that the State could levy VAT on that component, because the lease deed and surrounding attributes showed the necessary transfer of the right to use goods. The presence of service elements and payment of service tax on another component did not take the plant and machinery portion outside the State&#039;s taxing power. Authorities cited by the taxpayer were distinguished because they did not govern the same composite renting arrangement.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Jul 2018 07:07:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=527171" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (7) TMI 972 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363664</link>
      <description>A composite brewery lease involving land, building, plant and machinery was treated as including a separable transfer of the right to use plant and machinery as goods. The Court applied Article 366(29-A)(d) and Entry 54 of List II to hold that the State could levy VAT on that component, because the lease deed and surrounding attributes showed the necessary transfer of the right to use goods. The presence of service elements and payment of service tax on another component did not take the plant and machinery portion outside the State&#039;s taxing power. Authorities cited by the taxpayer were distinguished because they did not govern the same composite renting arrangement.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363664</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>