<?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>1982 (12) TMI 169 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153699</link>
    <description>A canteen run to discharge a statutory obligation was not treated as a separate business for sales tax purposes where it was integral and inseparable from the assessee&#039;s main non-commercial activity of maintaining and servicing Navy ships. Although the statutory definition of business extended to incidental or ancillary transactions, the Court noted that this did not automatically convert every incidental activity into a distinct taxable business. Because the canteen formed only a small part of the assessee&#039;s overall functioning and was not a detachable commercial venture, its turnover was not exigible to tax and the assessee was not a dealer on that basis.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Dec 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 27 Jul 2013 12:31:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=170734" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1982 (12) TMI 169 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153699</link>
      <description>A canteen run to discharge a statutory obligation was not treated as a separate business for sales tax purposes where it was integral and inseparable from the assessee&#039;s main non-commercial activity of maintaining and servicing Navy ships. Although the statutory definition of business extended to incidental or ancillary transactions, the Court noted that this did not automatically convert every incidental activity into a distinct taxable business. Because the canteen formed only a small part of the assessee&#039;s overall functioning and was not a detachable commercial venture, its turnover was not exigible to tax and the assessee was not a dealer on that basis.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Dec 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153699</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>