9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (10) TMI 378X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e land and building at Akrampur, Unnao and plants and machineries and accessories lying at Panki Industrial Estate connected with leather only. No portion of the land and building at Panki was sold. During the assessment proceedings the applicant claimed that the sale amount of leather unit should be excluded from the turnover and no tax be levied on the said sale as provided under rule 44(e). It was urged that amounts realised by the dealer of his business of leather unit as a whole shall be deducted from the total turnover. According to the petitioner s counsel the leather business of the applicant-corporation was sold as a whole to M/s. Haque Sons Leather Complex including the land and building at Akrampur and as such the question of inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e sale proceeds of a branch which is an independent unit by itself would qualify for the exemption. The learned Additional Government Pleader stressed that the goodwill had not been sold. We are of the view that so long as the bona fides of the transaction is not in question and so long as the business has been sold as a going concern, the mere fact that the goodwill has not been sold is not material. 4. Mr. Misra, Standing Counsel appearing for the department, has argued that though land and building at Akrampur was sold there was no sale of land and building at Panki. Secondly, he argued that the goodwill of the business was not sold as such there was not a sale of business as a whole within the meaning of rule 44(e) of the Rules. Mr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all under the exception to rule 44(e) of the Rules. 6.. The argument of Mr. Misra that since land and building was not sold, the same would not amount to selling of business as a whole. The argument is fallacious. A particular business may or may not own a particular land or building. In Akrampur the entire plant and machineries including the land was sold but in the Panki the same could not have been sold as other businesses of the industrial house was continuing at the said premises. Moreover, in the given case a business may not own a particular land and building as such selling of land and building cannot form a part of business of an industrial house. Moreover, rule 44(e) does not say anything regarding land and building, it only ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
