<?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>1988 (8) TMI 391 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155715</link>
    <description>Sale of scrapped vehicles, old tyres, tubes, tender forms and other unserviceable material by a road transport corporation was held not to constitute &quot;business&quot; under the Act. The corporation&#039;s statutory object was efficient and economical transport, and disposal of discarded material was only incidental to that function, not an independent commercial venture. The Court applied its earlier decision on the same corporation and distinguished the railway scrap authorities on their different statutory setting and commercial context. As the department failed to show the volume, frequency, continuity or regularity needed to prove an intention to trade in scrap, the corporation was not a &quot;dealer&quot; and the sales were not liable to sales tax.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Aug 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Sep 2013 18:15:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=172745" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (8) TMI 391 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155715</link>
      <description>Sale of scrapped vehicles, old tyres, tubes, tender forms and other unserviceable material by a road transport corporation was held not to constitute &quot;business&quot; under the Act. The corporation&#039;s statutory object was efficient and economical transport, and disposal of discarded material was only incidental to that function, not an independent commercial venture. The Court applied its earlier decision on the same corporation and distinguished the railway scrap authorities on their different statutory setting and commercial context. As the department failed to show the volume, frequency, continuity or regularity needed to prove an intention to trade in scrap, the corporation was not a &quot;dealer&quot; and the sales were not liable to sales tax.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Aug 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155715</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>