9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1968 (2) TMI 115 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax
Issues:
1. Whether the opponent was a transferee within the meaning of section 26(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953? 2. Whether there was evidence before the Tribunal to conclude that the respondent's objective was to obtain possession of premises for starting a new business? Analysis: The case involved a dispute regarding a transfer of business between the respondent and the proprietors of a grocery and provision merchant business. The transfer deed indicated the sale of the business along with the assignment of tenancy rights. However, the Tribunal found that the respondent did not continue the mentioned business but instead started a new one of manufacturing and selling surgical appliances immediately after acquiring possession. The Tribunal also noted that the respondent had informed the Sales Tax Authorities that the original business had been closed before the transfer. These circumstances led the Tribunal to conclude that the recitals in the transfer deed were false, and the real intent was for the respondent to obtain possession for his surgical appliances business. Regarding the second issue, the department contested that there was insufficient evidence for the Tribunal to determine the respondent's true objective. However, the High Court disagreed, emphasizing that the closure of the original business six months before the transfer, coupled with the respondent not engaging in the transferred business, clearly indicated the true purpose was to secure the premises for the surgical appliances business. The Court found that there was substantial evidence for the Tribunal's conclusion, affirming that the respondent's primary aim was to use the premises for his new venture. Consequently, the Court answered the first question in the negative, as there was no intention to transfer an existing business. The second question was answered in the affirmative, confirming that the respondent's goal was to acquire the premises for his surgical appliances business. The judgment favored the assessee, directing the applicants to cover the costs.
|
