<?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>1967 (4) TMI 180 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=144189</link>
    <description>Turnover from a fair price shop was not treated as business turnover because the activity lacked a commercial character. Although the statutory definition of &quot;business&quot; under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 covered trade, commerce and incidental transactions, the court noted that the activity still had to be in the course of trade or commerce. The shop was run as an employee amenity, and the articles of association did not show that it was carried on as a trade or commercial venture. Mere accrual of profit was insufficient, so the assessee was not a dealer in respect of that turnover and the turnover was not liable to sales tax.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Apr 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Apr 2013 14:04:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166187" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1967 (4) TMI 180 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=144189</link>
      <description>Turnover from a fair price shop was not treated as business turnover because the activity lacked a commercial character. Although the statutory definition of &quot;business&quot; under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 covered trade, commerce and incidental transactions, the court noted that the activity still had to be in the course of trade or commerce. The shop was run as an employee amenity, and the articles of association did not show that it was carried on as a trade or commercial venture. Mere accrual of profit was insufficient, so the assessee was not a dealer in respect of that turnover and the turnover was not liable to sales tax.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Apr 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=144189</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>