https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375297 Deduction under Rule 9(1)(e) of the Uttar Pradesh VAT Rules, 2008 was treated as admissible where goods were purchased from outside the State solely for execution of pre-existing indivisible works contracts and were actually used in performing those contracts. The court reasoned that, on those facts, the movement of goods was occasioned by the contract and the transfer of property fell within the inter-State field under Section 3 of the CST Act, so the State could not deny the deduction on the footing of a taxable deemed sale. The absence of privity with the supplier, or failure to name the supplier in the contract, was held irrelevant. en-us Fri, 01 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 May 2019 11:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375297 Deduction under Rule 9(1)(e) of the Uttar Pradesh VAT Rules, 2008 was treated as admissible where goods were purchased from outside the State solely for execution of pre-existing indivisible works contracts and were actually used in performing those contracts. The court reasoned that, on those facts, the movement of goods was occasioned by the contract and the transfer of property fell within the inter-State field under Section 3 of the CST Act, so the State could not deny the deduction on the footing of a taxable deemed sale. The absence of privity with the supplier, or failure to name the supplier in the contract, was held irrelevant. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 01 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375297