<?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>1957 (2) TMI 46 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127596</link>
    <description>Mere cultivation of an assessee&#039;s own land and sale of surplus agricultural produce do not, by themselves, amount to carrying on the business of selling or supplying goods for sales tax purposes. Liability attaches only where the person is engaged in that business, and the taxing authority must prove that essential ingredient. On the facts, separate agricultural and business accounts were maintained and there was no evidence that the land was acquired or cultivated with a primary intention to conduct a selling business. The assessee was therefore not a dealer in respect of the agricultural produce, and the related sale proceeds could not be included in taxable turnover.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 1957 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Mar 2013 17:00:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164471" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1957 (2) TMI 46 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127596</link>
      <description>Mere cultivation of an assessee&#039;s own land and sale of surplus agricultural produce do not, by themselves, amount to carrying on the business of selling or supplying goods for sales tax purposes. Liability attaches only where the person is engaged in that business, and the taxing authority must prove that essential ingredient. On the facts, separate agricultural and business accounts were maintained and there was no evidence that the land was acquired or cultivated with a primary intention to conduct a selling business. The assessee was therefore not a dealer in respect of the agricultural produce, and the related sale proceeds could not be included in taxable turnover.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 1957 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127596</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>