<?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 (7) TMI 400 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156136</link>
    <description>Business activity for sales tax purposes depends on whether the person carries on buying or selling goods with a profit motive, even if no immediate profit is shown. The High Court treated the petitioner&#039;s distribution of fertilisers under the seeding programme as part of the same commercial activity as its regular sales, noting that a distributor&#039;s margin existed up to 1 August 1974 and that later operations were intended to build an infrastructure and market network for future profit. The Court distinguished authorities dealing with different commodities, discarded goods, or a different statutory definition. It concluded that the petitioner was a dealer in the relevant transactions and the transactions were taxable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Jul 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Sep 2013 18:52:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=173163" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (7) TMI 400 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156136</link>
      <description>Business activity for sales tax purposes depends on whether the person carries on buying or selling goods with a profit motive, even if no immediate profit is shown. The High Court treated the petitioner&#039;s distribution of fertilisers under the seeding programme as part of the same commercial activity as its regular sales, noting that a distributor&#039;s margin existed up to 1 August 1974 and that later operations were intended to build an infrastructure and market network for future profit. The Court distinguished authorities dealing with different commodities, discarded goods, or a different statutory definition. It concluded that the petitioner was a dealer in the relevant transactions and the transactions were taxable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Jul 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156136</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>