TaxTMI Login
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%
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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the transfer of the domestic pharmaceutical business under the business transfer agreement was a slump sale of a going concern outside the scope of taxable sales under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002; (ii) whether the reviewing authority could, in exercise of review power, dissect the agreement and tax the allocated intangible rights as a separate sale; and (iii) whether the impugned review order was vitiated by breach of natural justice and non-application of mind.
Issue (i): whether the transfer of the domestic pharmaceutical business under the business transfer agreement was a slump sale of a going concern outside the scope of taxable sales under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002.
Analysis: The agreement was read as a whole and was found to effect a lock, stock and barrel transfer of the business as a going concern for a lump sum consideration. The allocation of values in the schedule was expressly for stamp duty purposes and did not alter the commercial character of the transaction. A business as such is not goods, and the sale proceeds of a business as a going concern do not constitute turnover of sales under the charging scheme of the Act.
Conclusion: The transfer was not liable to VAT as a taxable sale of goods.
Issue (ii): whether the reviewing authority could, in exercise of review power, dissect the agreement and tax the allocated intangible rights as a separate sale.
Analysis: The review jurisdiction under Section 25 was confined to examining whether turnover had escaped tax or was under-assessed, and it could not be used to reconstruct the commercial bargain by selectively isolating intangible rights and treating them as a separate taxable sale. The authority adopted a pick and choose approach, contrary to the holistic commercial intent of the parties and beyond the scope of the notice that triggered review.
Conclusion: The reviewing authority acted in excess of jurisdiction and could not lawfully vivisect the agreement for VAT purposes.
Issue (iii): whether the impugned review order was vitiated by breach of natural justice and non-application of mind.
Analysis: The basis of the final order materially departed from the basis set out in the review notice, and the petitioner was not fairly confronted with the decisive reasoning ultimately adopted. The order also reflected non-application of mind, including verbatim borrowing from service tax proceedings, and failed to engage with the commercial rationale and the provisions governing slump sale and stamp-duty valuation.
Conclusion: The order was vitiated by breach of natural justice and non-application of mind.
Final Conclusion: The impugned review order and consequential demand could not be sustained in law and were set aside because the transaction remained a slump sale of a going concern, not a dissectible taxable sale of goods.
Ratio Decidendi: A composite transfer of business as a going concern cannot be artificially vivisected for VAT by isolating separately valued intangible rights when the agreement, read holistically, shows a lump sum slump sale and the statutory review power does not permit reconstruction of the parties' commercial bargain beyond the notice issued.
TaxTMI 
