<?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>1968 (1) TMI 43 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148329</link>
    <description>A co-operative society, as a body corporate, falls within the statutory meaning of &quot;person&quot; for dealer status under sales tax law, but liability arises only if the relevant activity is carried on as a business with an intention to trade in that commodity. The court applied the usual business indicators of volume, frequency, continuity and system, noting that no single factor is decisive. On the facts, the society&#039;s main activity was transporting fish for its members, and ice was supplied only incidentally to that transport service. Because there was no separate intention to carry on business in ice, the society was not a dealer in respect of ice supply and was not liable to sales tax on that activity.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Jan 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2013 16:50:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166369" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1968 (1) TMI 43 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148329</link>
      <description>A co-operative society, as a body corporate, falls within the statutory meaning of &quot;person&quot; for dealer status under sales tax law, but liability arises only if the relevant activity is carried on as a business with an intention to trade in that commodity. The court applied the usual business indicators of volume, frequency, continuity and system, noting that no single factor is decisive. On the facts, the society&#039;s main activity was transporting fish for its members, and ice was supplied only incidentally to that transport service. Because there was no separate intention to carry on business in ice, the society was not a dealer in respect of ice supply and was not liable to sales tax on that activity.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Jan 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148329</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>