Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (1.24 seconds)State Of Gujarat vs M/S. Raipur Manufacturing Company Ltd on 30 September, 1966
13. Having regard to the above definition of the word "business", the Division Bench of Bombay High Court held that the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Raipur Manufaturing Co., Ltd.(Supra) has not been overruled in its entirety and it has been held that fixed assets, which is not stock in trade was not liable to tax even after the amendment in the definition. In my opinion, the decision of Division Bench of the Bombay High Court is not applicable to the present case. The definition of" business" under the U.P. Trade Tax Act shows that it includes the transaction of sale of plant, machinery, unserviceable or obsolete or discarded machinery, or any parts or accessories, which are goods of capital nature. Therefore, in my opinion, fiat car is liable to tax though it is a capital assets, in view of the definition of "business", and the applicant is held to be "dealer".
Morarji Brothers (Import & Export) Pvt. ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 23 January, 1995
In the case of Morarji Brothers (Import & Export) Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 99 STC, 117, decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Raipur Manufacturing Co., Ltd., reported in 19 STC 1 and the amended definition of '"business" defined by clause (5A) of Section 2, inserted by Maharashtra Act 62 of 1974, w.e.f. 15.01.1975 has been considered, which shows that clause (5A) of Section 2 includes any trade, commerce or manufacture or any adventure in the nature of trade, commerce or manufacture and any transaction in connection with, or incidental or ancillary to such trade, commerce, manufacture, adventure or concern.
The Maharashtra Prohibition Act
State Of Tamil Nadu vs M/S Burmah Shell Oil Storage & ... on 10 October, 1972
In the case of State of Tamilnadu v. Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Co. of India Ltd. and Anr. , reported in 31 STC, 426 after the amendment in the definition of "business", it has been held that the sales of advertisement materials and scrap etc. are liable to sales tax under the Madras General Sales Tax act. After the amendment in 1964 "any trade, commerce or manufacture of any adventure of concern in the nature of trade, commerce or manufacture, whether or not such trade, commerce, manufacture, adventure or concern is carried on with a motive to make gain or profit and whether or not any profit accrues from such trade, commerce, manufacture, adventure or concern" had been added.
State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Abdul Khader on 4 April, 1961
"Under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, the aggregate of the price received and receivable by a person carrying on business of selling goods is liable to be included in his taxable turnover. It follows as a corollary that in the turnover of a person carrying on the business of selling one commodity will not be included the price received by him by sale of another commodity unless he carries on the business of selling that other commodity. That is so because within the meaning of Section 2(6) of Bombay Act 3 of 1953 to be a dealer a person must carry on the business of selling those goods, price whereof is sought to he included in the turnover. In other words, he must carry on the business of selling a commodity before his turnover from sale of that commodity is taxable. As pointed out by this Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Abdul lakshi and Bros., a person to be a dealer must be engaged in the business of buying or selling or supplying goods. The expression "business" though extensively used in taxing statutes, is a work of indefinite import. In taxing statutes, it is used in the sense of an occupation, or profession which occupies the time, attention and labour of a person, normally with the object of making profit. To regard an activity as business there must be a course of dealings, either actually continued or contemplated to be continued with a profit-motive, and not for sport or pleasure. Whether a person carries on business in a particular commodity must depend upon the volume, frequency, continuity and regularity of transactions of purchase and sale in a class of goods and the transactions must ordinarily be entered into with a profit-motive. By the use of the expression "profit-motive" it is not intended that profit must in fact be earned. Nor does the expression cover a mere desire to make some monetary gain out of a transaction or even a series of transactions. It predicates a motive which pervades the whole series of transactions effected by the person in the course of his activity. In actual practice, the profit-motive may be easily discernible in some transactions: in others it would have to be inferred from a review of the circumstances attendant upon the, transaction. For instance, where a person purchases a commodity in bulk and sells it in retail it may be readily inferred that he has a profit-motive in entering into the series of transactions of purchase and sale. A similar inference may be raised where a person manufactures finished goods from raw materials belonging to him or purchased by him, and sells them. But where a person comes to own in the course of his business of manufacturing or selling a commodity, some other commodity which is not a by-product or a subsidiary product of that business and he sells that commodity, cogent evidence that he has intention to carry on business of selling that commodity would be required. Where a person in the course of carrying on a business is required to dispose of what may be called his fixed assets or his discarded goods acquired in the course of the business, an inference that he desired to carry on the business of selling his fixed assets or discarded goods would not ordinarily arise. To infer from a course of transactions that it is intended thereby to carry on business ordinarily the characteristics of volume, frequency, continuity and regularity indicating an intention to continue the activity of carrying on the transactions must exist. Hut no test is decisive of the intention to carry on the business: in the light of all the circumstances an inference that a person desires to carry on the business of selling goods may be raised.
The Sale Of Goods Act, 1930
General Sea Foods vs State Of Kerala on 30 June, 1987
In the case of General Sea Food v. State of Kerala, reported in 71 STC, 130, assessee was carrying on the business of processing of sale of sea foods and has sold two motor boats and a motor jeep. Division Bench of Kerala High Court held the sale of motor boats and motor jeep as ancillary to the business. In view of the definition of the business contained in Section 2 (vi) of the Act, which is almost similar to the definition of the business under the U.P. Trade Tax Act.
1