<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1971 (7) TMI 132 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100757</link>
    <description>The scope of &quot;dealer&quot;, &quot;business&quot;, &quot;turnover&quot; and &quot;sale price&quot; under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 governed whether sales of old machinery, iron and steel defectives, and spare parts were transactions connected with, or incidental or ancillary to, the assessee&#039;s manufacturing business. A substantial question of law arose from the Board&#039;s order, and the High Court&#039;s task at the reference stage was only to decide whether such a question existed under section 15(1). Refusing a reference on the ground that the matter was already covered was erroneous, because the High Court could not determine the question without a reference from the Board. The refusal to make a reference was therefore illegal, and a reference was directed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Jul 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Sep 2013 10:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=137807" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1971 (7) TMI 132 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100757</link>
      <description>The scope of &quot;dealer&quot;, &quot;business&quot;, &quot;turnover&quot; and &quot;sale price&quot; under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 governed whether sales of old machinery, iron and steel defectives, and spare parts were transactions connected with, or incidental or ancillary to, the assessee&#039;s manufacturing business. A substantial question of law arose from the Board&#039;s order, and the High Court&#039;s task at the reference stage was only to decide whether such a question existed under section 15(1). Refusing a reference on the ground that the matter was already covered was erroneous, because the High Court could not determine the question without a reference from the Board. The refusal to make a reference was therefore illegal, and a reference was directed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Jul 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100757</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>