<?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>1970 (12) TMI 68 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=149894</link>
    <description>Extraction of bamboos and salai wood under a lease was treated as a sale of severed forest produce, because the lessee had exclusive rights to fell, cut, remove and utilise the produce for consideration linked to quantity extracted; the produce became liable to sales tax after the exemption period ended. Mere sale of forest produce grown on government land did not, however, amount to carrying on the business of buying, selling, supplying or distributing goods, absent the indicia of trading activity, continuity, regularity and profit-motive; the State and its forest department were therefore not dealers. Recovery of the tax as arrears of land revenue could not stand where the underlying demand was not legally payable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Dec 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 May 2013 18:15:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166935" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1970 (12) TMI 68 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=149894</link>
      <description>Extraction of bamboos and salai wood under a lease was treated as a sale of severed forest produce, because the lessee had exclusive rights to fell, cut, remove and utilise the produce for consideration linked to quantity extracted; the produce became liable to sales tax after the exemption period ended. Mere sale of forest produce grown on government land did not, however, amount to carrying on the business of buying, selling, supplying or distributing goods, absent the indicia of trading activity, continuity, regularity and profit-motive; the State and its forest department were therefore not dealers. Recovery of the tax as arrears of land revenue could not stand where the underlying demand was not legally payable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Dec 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=149894</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>