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 applicant was entitled to registration as a dealer with effect from 5 November 1965, on a true construction of the agreement dated 14 June 1965 and the indenture of assignment dated 5 November 1965.
Analysis: The agreement of 14 June 1965 was merely executory and did not itself transfer the business or any of its assets and liabilities. The subsequent indenture of assignment of 5 November 1965 was the instrument by which the business of the firm, together with its assets and liabilities, was actually transferred. Where the recitals in a deed are inconsistent with an unambiguous operative part, the operative part must prevail. The earlier date mentioned in the recitals only reflected the date from which the parties treated certain assets, liabilities and business dealings as having been taken over for accounting purposes. The statutory liability and the right to registration under section 19 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, arose only on succession by transfer, and that succession occurred on execution of the assignment deed.
Conclusion: The applicant was not entitled to registration effective from 5 November 1965; the transfer took effect only on 5 November 1965, and the reference was answered against the applicant.
Ratio Decidendi: In construing a deed, an unambiguous operative part prevails over inconsistent recitals, and for purposes of succession under the sales tax law, a transfer of business takes effect only when the operative instrument of transfer is executed.