https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154014 Under tax law, estoppel cannot enlarge liability, so obtaining registration and issuing form C declarations did not prevent the assessee from denying dealer status. The assessee was therefore not estopped. The isolated sale of printing machinery was not a transaction in the course of business, because the assessee was engaged in job-work printing as a service activity and the sale was not shown to be part of a trading pattern or an adventure in the nature of trade. The assessee was therefore not a dealer on that basis. Section 29(6) operated as a special charging provision for a person wrongly registered on his own application, and liability attached to sales made while the registration remained effective. The assessee was liable to tax under that provision. en-us Fri, 01 Oct 1982 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Aug 2013 18:24:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154014 Under tax law, estoppel cannot enlarge liability, so obtaining registration and issuing form C declarations did not prevent the assessee from denying dealer status. The assessee was therefore not estopped. The isolated sale of printing machinery was not a transaction in the course of business, because the assessee was engaged in job-work printing as a service activity and the sale was not shown to be part of a trading pattern or an adventure in the nature of trade. The assessee was therefore not a dealer on that basis. Section 29(6) operated as a special charging provision for a person wrongly registered on his own application, and liability attached to sales made while the registration remained effective. The assessee was liable to tax under that provision. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 01 Oct 1982 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154014