Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2007 (4) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2007 (4) TMI 649 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Issues involved: Whether sale of movable assets amounts to sale during the course of business for tax levy under the M. P. Vanijyik Kar Adhiniyam, 1994.

Comprehensive Details:

The petitioner, an incorporated limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling various products, challenged the levy of tax on the sale of movable assets during the assessment period from April 1, 1997, to March 31, 1998. The assessing authority held that the sale of movable assets was liable to tax, leading to additional demand and penalty proceedings for filing a false return.

The main contention was whether the sale of movable assets, pursuant to an agreement with another company, constituted a sale during the course of business to attract tax liability under the Act. The petitioner argued that the sale occurred upon the closure of the business and not during the regular course of business activities.

During the hearing, the court considered various legal precedents cited by both parties. The court emphasized the importance of interpreting taxing statutes with strictness and clarity, ensuring that no payment is exacted from the subject beyond what is required by the law.

The court analyzed the definition of a "dealer" under the Act, emphasizing that a person is considered a dealer when involved in buying or selling goods during the course of business. It highlighted that the term "during the course of business" implies a continuous and systematic activity related to buying or selling goods.

After a detailed examination of the facts and legal principles, the court concluded that the sale of movable assets by the petitioner did not occur during the course of business as defined by the Act. Therefore, the court held that the tax levy on the sale of movable assets was not justified, and the penalty order was also set aside.

In the final decision, both writ petitions were allowed, and no costs were imposed on either party. The court directed the issuance of a duly authenticated copy of the order to be included in the record of the relevant writ petition.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates