TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the petitioner, engaged in tyre repair using rubber, chemicals and other materials purchased for that work, fell within the definition of a dealer and was liable to sales tax on the materials used in executing the repairs.
Analysis: The work order showed that the petitioner purchased materials such as rubber and chemicals for use in the repair work and that, after the repairs, those materials stood transferred to the owner of the tyres. Under the statutory definition, a dealer includes a person carrying on the business of buying, selling, supplying or distributing goods, and the expression business is wide enough to cover transactions incidental or ancillary to the trade. The wider definition introduced under the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994 also extended dealer to persons transferring the right to use goods in the course of business. On that basis, the materials used in the repair work were treated as taxable goods and the earlier registration refusals did not confer immunity from tax, though they could be relevant at the stage of assessment, interest or penalty.
Conclusion: The petitioner was held to be a dealer and liable to sales tax on the materials used in the repair work; the challenge to the impugned notices and order was rejected.
TaxTMI 
