Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.29 seconds)The Maharashtra Prohibition Act
Section 3 in The Maharashtra Prohibition Act [Entire Act]
State Of Gujarat vs M/S. Raipur Manufacturing Company Ltd on 30 September, 1966
15. Before parting with this case, it may be expedient to mention that the definition of "business" in clause (5A) of section 2 of the Act has been amended by the Maharashtra Act 9 of 1988 with retrospective effect from July 1, 1981 and Maharashtra Act 9 of 1989 with retrospective effect from August 16, 1985, with a view to include "transactions in connection with or incidental or ancillary to the commencement or closure of the business and "to do away with the profit motive as an ingredient of business". As the controversy in the present case pertains to a period prior to the coming into force of these amendments, we do not propose to deal with the same or the implications thereof. Suffice it to say that, in our opinion, the insertion of definition of "business" in clause (5A) with effect from January 15, 1975 and the subsequent amendments made by Maharashtra Act 9 of 1988 and Maharashtra Act 9 of 1989 have not nullified altogether the decision of the Supreme Court in Raipur Manufacturing Co. Ltd. case [1967] 19 STC 1. Even now, a person carrying on the business of buying or selling certain goods cannot be regarded as a dealer in any and every goods sold by him without a finding that either he carries on the business of buying or selling such goods or that the sales of such goods are connected with or incidental or ancillary to his "business of buying or selling goods" or that they fall in any of the inclusive clauses of the definition of "business". The legislative intent of the Sales Tax Act and the charging section, as stated above, is not to levy tax on all sales or purchases of taxable goods made by a dealer. It is only the sales or purchases effected by persons who carry on business, within the meaning of clause (5A) of section 2 of the Act, of buying or selling such goods that are liable to tax under the Act. Had the legislative intent been otherwise, it was not necessary to provide in the charging section that tax would be payable only by "a dealer" and to define the expression "dealer" as a person who carries on the "business of buying or selling goods in the State" and to further define the expression "business" for that purpose and to amend the same from time to time with a view to widening the ambit thereof. All this would be rendered redundant, if "all purchases or sales" of taxable goods by a dealer, per se, are held to be taxable under the Act. Had it been so, section 3 would have provided that every person who is engaged in business and whose turnover of sales and purchases during the given period exceed the specified limits, would be liable to pay tax on the turnover of all sales or purchases made by him. We cannot lose sight of the fact that clause (5A) merely defines "business", whereas in order to be a dealer, a person must carry on the business of "buying or selling goods". The expression "business" in clause (11) is thus qualified by the words "of buying or selling goods" and this qualification cannot be ignored while deciding the liability of a person to pay tax under section 3 of the Act on the sales effected by him. It is for this reason that, despite the definition of "business" in clause (5A), the Legislature, by Maharashtra Act 24 of 1985, amended the definition of "dealer" in clause (11) with a view to levying tax on the disposal of unclaimed or confiscated goods including unserviceables, etc., by persons like Bombay Port Trust, Maharashtra Road Transport Corporation, etc., and provided that notwithstanding anything contained in clause (5A) or any other provisions of the Act, the persons specified therein would be deemed to be dealer to the extent of such disposals. In any event, as stated earlier, in the present case, we do not propose to express ourselves on the implication of these amendments as such.
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs Thermo Electrics on 2 March, 1976
In view of the above, with utmost respect, we find it difficult to agree with the broad proposition of law laid down by the Madras High Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Thermo Electrics [1977] 39 STC 317.
Commissioner Of Sales Tax vs Project Automobiles on 14 April, 1978
The above conclusion was arrived at by the Madhya Pradesh High Court on full consideration of its earlier decision in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Project Automobiles [1978] 42 STC 279.
The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956
The District Controller Of Stores, ... vs The Assistant Commercial Taxation ... on 9 December, 1975
Similarly, in District Controller of Stores, Northern Railway v. Assistant Commercial Taxation Officer , the sales of unserviceable materials and iron scrap were held to be taxable in view of the finding that such sales were in connection with or ancillary to the activity of transportation carried on by the railway. This decision is not an authority for the proposition that sales of fixed or capital assets by a dealer are sales connected with or incidental to the business of selling goods.
State Of Tamil Nadu vs M/S Burmah Shell Oil Storage & ... on 10 October, 1972
Later, in State of Tamil Nadu v. Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Co. of India Ltd. [1973] 31 STC 426, also, the Supreme Court held the sale of scrap to be liable to tax in view of its finding that it was "certainly connected with the business of the company". The Supreme Court, in the above case, was, however, not required to deal with sale of used or discarded fixed or capital assets.