<?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>1966 (3) TMI 74 - MYSORE HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=144154</link>
    <description>Sales by a railway canteen to railway staff were not sales in the course of trade or business under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, because the canteen was run as a labour welfare on a no-profit, no-loss basis. The railway administration supplied accommodation and facilities, and the evidence did not show any profit-making object or intention to acquire gain. The then-applicable definition of business required such an intention, while the expanded 1964 definition had no retrospective effect. The bye-laws merely regulated disposal of any surplus and did not establish a business activity. The assessments were therefore without jurisdiction and were quashed in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Mar 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Apr 2013 14:01:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166152" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1966 (3) TMI 74 - MYSORE HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=144154</link>
      <description>Sales by a railway canteen to railway staff were not sales in the course of trade or business under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, because the canteen was run as a labour welfare on a no-profit, no-loss basis. The railway administration supplied accommodation and facilities, and the evidence did not show any profit-making object or intention to acquire gain. The then-applicable definition of business required such an intention, while the expanded 1964 definition had no retrospective effect. The bye-laws merely regulated disposal of any surplus and did not establish a business activity. The assessments were therefore without jurisdiction and were quashed in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Mar 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=144154</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>