Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Expansion of 'Business' Definition Upheld in Sales Tax Case</h1> The court held that the amendments in Act 15 of 1964, expanding the definition of 'business' to include activities without a profit motive, were valid. ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the Southern Railway Employees' Workshop Canteen can be considered a 'dealer' under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959.2. Whether the sales made by the canteen constitute 'business' under the Act.3. The impact of the amendments introduced by Act 15 of 1964 on the definition of 'business.'4. The validity of the sales tax assessment and collection from the petitioner.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Whether the Southern Railway Employees' Workshop Canteen can be considered a 'dealer' under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959:The petitioner argued that the canteen, operated under statutory obligation per section 46 of the Factories Act and Madras Factories Rules, 1950, should not be deemed a dealer. The canteen serves food on a non-profit basis, negating any commercial aspect. The definition of 'dealer' in section 2(g) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, includes any person engaged in the business of buying and selling. The petitioner contended that the absence of a profit motive should exclude the canteen from this definition.2. Whether the sales made by the canteen constitute 'business' under the Act:The petitioner emphasized that 'business' as defined in section 2(d) of the Act includes trade, commerce, or manufacture, whether or not profit accrues. However, previous judicial interpretations, such as in Sri Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. State of Madras, suggested that a profit motive is integral to the concept of business. The petitioner referenced several cases to support the view that the absence of a profit motive should exempt the canteen from being considered a business under the Act.3. The impact of the amendments introduced by Act 15 of 1964 on the definition of 'business':The amendment to section 2(d) of the 1959 Act expanded the definition of 'business' to include activities carried out without a profit motive. Section 9 of the Amendment Act validated the levy and collection of sales tax on such activities, regardless of profit motive. The Government Pleader argued that this amendment negated the need to establish a profit motive for assessing sales tax.4. The validity of the sales tax assessment and collection from the petitioner:The petitioner challenged the assessment and collection of Rs. 2,229-09 nP. as sales tax for 1959-60, arguing it was illegal and ultra vires the Constitution. The court examined whether the statutory amendments and the broader definition of 'business' justified the assessment. The court noted that the power to tax sales under Entry 54 in List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution is not confined to sales with a profit motive. The court also addressed the petitioner's argument about the absence of a contractual bargain in canteen sales, concluding that fixed prices do not eliminate the element of a contract.Conclusion:The court held that the amendments in Act 15 of 1964, which included activities without a profit motive within the definition of 'business,' were valid and within the State Legislature's power. The validating provision in Section 9 of the Amendment Act upheld the sales tax assessment. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed, and the assessment and collection of sales tax from the petitioner were deemed lawful. The court emphasized that the absence of a profit motive does not exclude an activity from being considered a business under the amended Act.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found