https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156034 The Court upheld the decision that the revision petitioner, a public limited company engaged in rubber cultivation, was liable to pay tax on inter-State sales of rubber as it qualified as a dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act. The Court emphasized that the company's systematic rubber cultivation and sales constituted a business activity, falling within the broadened scope of the term "business" under the Act. Previous judgments supported the inclusion of agriculturists as dealers post the 1976 amendment. The revision petition was dismissed, affirming the tax liability on the petitioner's inter-State sales of rubber. en-us Tue, 29 Aug 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 12 Sep 2013 15:37:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156034 The Court upheld the decision that the revision petitioner, a public limited company engaged in rubber cultivation, was liable to pay tax on inter-State sales of rubber as it qualified as a dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act. The Court emphasized that the company's systematic rubber cultivation and sales constituted a business activity, falling within the broadened scope of the term "business" under the Act. Previous judgments supported the inclusion of agriculturists as dealers post the 1976 amendment. The revision petition was dismissed, affirming the tax liability on the petitioner's inter-State sales of rubber. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 29 Aug 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156034