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-company was a dealer within the meaning of the amended definition in the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, and whether its casual sales of unserviceable materials were exigible to sales tax.
Analysis: The amended definition of dealer in section 2(c) of the 1941 Act enlarged the main definition by an inclusive part that expressly covered a body corporate selling, supplying or distributing goods, whether or not in the course of business. The definition of business in section 2(1a) showed that the Act was concerned with a wide taxable field, and the retrospective amendment substituted the expanded definition from the inception of the Act. Reading the inclusive portion separately and giving effect to its plain language, the Court held that the petitioner, being a body corporate whose goods were sold in the course of its activities, fell within the expanded definition even though it was not engaged in the business of buying or selling goods as its principal activity. The authorities relied on by the petitioner were distinguished on the basis of materially different statutory language.
Conclusion: The petitioner-company was a dealer under the 1941 Act and the impugned notices treating it as liable to tax on the disputed sales were valid.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a sales tax statute contains an inclusive definition that expressly extends dealer status to specified bodies corporate selling goods whether or not in the course of business, the plain language of that enlargement must be given full effect and such bodies are liable even if selling is not their principal business.