<?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>1963 (1) TMI 44 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128764</link>
    <description>A transport operator who sold used-up motor vehicles, tyres, batteries and other unserviceable parts was not treated as a dealer in respect of those sales under section 2(c) of the C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947. The controlling test was whether the person was carrying on a commercial business of selling the particular goods with a profit motive. Goods acquired for use in the transport business and later sold only when unserviceable were merely incidental realisations, and their frequency did not by itself convert the activity into trading in those goods. The Court therefore held that incidental disposal of obsolete assets did not amount to dealer status for those sales.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 02 Jan 1963 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Apr 2013 11:09:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=165633" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1963 (1) TMI 44 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128764</link>
      <description>A transport operator who sold used-up motor vehicles, tyres, batteries and other unserviceable parts was not treated as a dealer in respect of those sales under section 2(c) of the C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947. The controlling test was whether the person was carrying on a commercial business of selling the particular goods with a profit motive. Goods acquired for use in the transport business and later sold only when unserviceable were merely incidental realisations, and their frequency did not by itself convert the activity into trading in those goods. The Court therefore held that incidental disposal of obsolete assets did not amount to dealer status for those sales.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Jan 1963 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128764</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>