<?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 (3) TMI 1708 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING - MAHARASHTRA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275457</link>
    <description>Printed vinyl flex banners supplied on customer specifications using the supplier&#039;s own materials were treated as a composite works contract and taxed accordingly. Mounting charges, though separately billed, were held to form part of the sale price because they were incurred to complete delivery of the contracted goods in the required form and location. Leasing hoardings for a fixed period against consideration was treated as a deemed sale by transfer of the right to use goods, subject to verification that the hoardings are goods, with the charges forming sale price if that condition is met. Prospective effect was refused because no sufficient ground justified limiting past liability.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2018 10:11:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=536955" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (3) TMI 1708 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING - MAHARASHTRA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275457</link>
      <description>Printed vinyl flex banners supplied on customer specifications using the supplier&#039;s own materials were treated as a composite works contract and taxed accordingly. Mounting charges, though separately billed, were held to form part of the sale price because they were incurred to complete delivery of the contracted goods in the required form and location. Leasing hoardings for a fixed period against consideration was treated as a deemed sale by transfer of the right to use goods, subject to verification that the hoardings are goods, with the charges forming sale price if that condition is met. Prospective effect was refused because no sufficient ground justified limiting past liability.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275457</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>