Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the petitioner-association, which collected maida quotas for its members and distributed them to the members, carried on "business" so as to be a "dealer" liable to sales tax under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959.
Analysis: The definition of "dealer" under section 2(g) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 turns on carrying on the business of buying, selling, supplying or distributing goods. On the facts found, the association was only making arrangements to obtain maida and other requirements for its members, paying the value of the allotment on their behalf, obtaining delivery orders, and distributing the commodities to the members. This activity was held to be merely a collecting and distributing function for members and not an activity of buying or selling goods in the course of business. The department's reliance on the absence of objections to the provisional assessment was also rejected because the association had already made its stand clear that it was not liable to tax.
Conclusion: The petitioner-association was not a dealer and its activity did not amount to business; it was not liable to sales tax.
Ratio Decidendi: An association that merely procures commodities for its members, pays for them on their behalf, and distributes them to members without carrying on buying or selling as a business is not a dealer liable to sales tax.