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 Port Trust, in respect of sale of tender forms, cranage, pilot-age and allied receipts, was a dealer carrying on business so as to be liable to tax under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, notwithstanding Explanation IV to section 2(e).
Analysis: The definition of dealer under section 2(e), read with the charging provision in section 5, fastens liability only on a person carrying on business. The Port Trust's functions are statutory obligations under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, and the receipts in question arise from ancillary or incidental service activities connected with that statutory function. A mere enlargement of the class of persons mentioned in Explanation IV does not dispense with the essential requirement that the activity must still amount to business within the meaning of the Act. The settled position in the earlier decisions, including the Supreme Court's exposition on similar port activities, is that connected or ancillary sales do not become business unless an independent intention to conduct business is shown.
Conclusion: The Port Trust was not carrying on business and therefore was not a dealer liable to assessment on the disputed receipts. Explanation IV did not authorise taxation of the impugned transactions in the absence of business activity.