9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1977 (11) TMI 122 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax
Issues:
1. Whether the opponent is a 'dealer' under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. 2. Whether the purchases of material made by the opponent for construction of buildings were made in the course of its business as a dealer under the sales tax law. 3. Applicability of sub-section (5A) of section 22 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, to the opponent. Analysis: Issue 1: The Court considered whether the opponent qualifies as a 'dealer' under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. The Court referred to a previous decision and held that if the opponent purchased building materials in the course of their business as building contractors and used them in construction or repairs, they would be deemed dealers under the Act. Issue 2: Regarding the purchases of materials for construction, excluding scaffolding materials, the Court agreed that these purchases were made in the course of the opponent's business based on previous rulings. However, the Court highlighted that the classification of scaffolding materials as capital assets was contested by the opponent. The Tribunal did not address this issue, stating that the opponent was not a dealer under the Act. The Court directed the Tribunal to consider whether scaffolding materials were capital assets in the future proceedings. Issue 3: The Court examined the applicability of sub-section (5A) of section 22 of the Act to the opponent. This provision deals with situations where a person is registered as a dealer but later found ineligible for registration. Since the Court determined that the opponent qualifies as a dealer, the provision did not apply. Consequently, the Court concluded that this question did not arise in the case. In conclusion, the Court answered the questions as follows: 1. Affirmative regarding the opponent's status as a dealer. 2. Affirmative for purchases of materials other than scaffolding materials. 3. The third question did not arise. The Court made no order as to costs, and each party was directed to bear their own costs.
|
