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 a university engaged in imparting education and printing and selling admission forms to students can be treated as a dealer carrying on business under the U.P. VAT Act, 2008.
Analysis: The statutory definition of dealer requires carrying on the business of buying or selling goods, and business connotes a course of commercial activity. The University Act showed that the petitioner's principal functions were educational, including instruction, research, affiliation-related powers, and admission-related administration. Printing and selling admission forms was only a minor and incidental activity connected with the educational function. Applying the principle that an incidental or ancillary transaction does not itself constitute business unless the main activity is business, the Court held that the educational institution's form sale lacked the commercial character necessary to attract VAT liability. The absence of a profit motive and the essentially non-commercial nature of imparting education reinforced that conclusion.
Conclusion: The petitioner was not a dealer under section 2(h) of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008, and the printing and sale of admission forms did not amount to business under section 2(e) of that Act.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the main activity of an institution is non-commercial, an incidental sale linked to that activity does not amount to business or make the institution a dealer for sales tax or VAT purposes.