<?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>1976 (3) TMI 221 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151397</link>
    <description>The amended definition of business under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act was wide enough to cover sales connected with, incidental to, or ancillary to trade or manufacture, and profit motive was not required. The court held that sales of raw materials, semi-finished and finished goods, scrap, and capital assets by a dealer were includible in gross turnover where the transaction was a sale within the statutory definition, and the capital asset or stock-in-trade distinction was immaterial for sales tax purposes. A transfer of some assets or business rationalisation did not amount to a sale of the business as a whole so as to attract the rule 6(d) exclusion. The disputed sales were therefore taxable and includible in gross turnover.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Mar 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Jun 2013 14:33:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=168435" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1976 (3) TMI 221 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151397</link>
      <description>The amended definition of business under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act was wide enough to cover sales connected with, incidental to, or ancillary to trade or manufacture, and profit motive was not required. The court held that sales of raw materials, semi-finished and finished goods, scrap, and capital assets by a dealer were includible in gross turnover where the transaction was a sale within the statutory definition, and the capital asset or stock-in-trade distinction was immaterial for sales tax purposes. A transfer of some assets or business rationalisation did not amount to a sale of the business as a whole so as to attract the rule 6(d) exclusion. The disputed sales were therefore taxable and includible in gross turnover.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Mar 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151397</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>