<?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>2019 (3) TMI 24 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376003</link>
    <description>A composite contract for supplying and fixing PVC stadium chairs on stainless steel framework was treated as a works contract because the dominant activity was fabrication, welding, grinding, polishing, anchoring and installation into the stadium structure. The chairs were not marketable goods sold as such, and their identity was lost on incorporation into the works rather than transferred as goods simpliciter. Distinctions drawn from cases on rolling shutters, pipelines or lifts did not assist the Revenue on these facts. The Tribunal&#039;s assessment of the agreement, work schedule and engineering explanation was found sound, and its view that the transfer was not in the form of goods was not perverse.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Jun 2019 12:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=560607" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (3) TMI 24 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376003</link>
      <description>A composite contract for supplying and fixing PVC stadium chairs on stainless steel framework was treated as a works contract because the dominant activity was fabrication, welding, grinding, polishing, anchoring and installation into the stadium structure. The chairs were not marketable goods sold as such, and their identity was lost on incorporation into the works rather than transferred as goods simpliciter. Distinctions drawn from cases on rolling shutters, pipelines or lifts did not assist the Revenue on these facts. The Tribunal&#039;s assessment of the agreement, work schedule and engineering explanation was found sound, and its view that the transfer was not in the form of goods was not perverse.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376003</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>