<?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 (8) TMI 172 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148528</link>
    <description>A co-operative society running a canteen for members without profit-motive was not carrying on business of buying or selling goods and therefore was not a dealer under section 2(11) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. The inclusive reference to a society, club or association buying from or selling to members did not remove the basic requirement of business in the commercial sense. Section 22(5-A) also did not create tax liability merely because the society held a registration certificate, since that provision operates only where registration ought not to have been granted to an otherwise taxable dealer. The canteen turnover was therefore not taxable on either footing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 Aug 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Apr 2013 15:29:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166568" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1968 (8) TMI 172 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148528</link>
      <description>A co-operative society running a canteen for members without profit-motive was not carrying on business of buying or selling goods and therefore was not a dealer under section 2(11) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. The inclusive reference to a society, club or association buying from or selling to members did not remove the basic requirement of business in the commercial sense. Section 22(5-A) also did not create tax liability merely because the society held a registration certificate, since that provision operates only where registration ought not to have been granted to an otherwise taxable dealer. The canteen turnover was therefore not taxable on either footing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Aug 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148528</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>