<?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>2013 (4) TMI 497 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=227265</link>
    <description>A university engaged primarily in education, research and admission administration was not treated as carrying on business under the U.P. VAT Act, 2008 merely because it printed and sold admission forms. The Court noted that dealer status depends on a course of commercial activity involving buying or selling goods, and that an incidental or ancillary transaction does not itself become business unless the main activity is commercial. As the form sale was minor, connected with the educational function, and lacked a profit motive, it did not attract VAT liability. The institution was therefore not a dealer under section 2(h), and the form sale was not business under section 2(e).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Jul 2014 16:50:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=195649" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (4) TMI 497 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=227265</link>
      <description>A university engaged primarily in education, research and admission administration was not treated as carrying on business under the U.P. VAT Act, 2008 merely because it printed and sold admission forms. The Court noted that dealer status depends on a course of commercial activity involving buying or selling goods, and that an incidental or ancillary transaction does not itself become business unless the main activity is commercial. As the form sale was minor, connected with the educational function, and lacked a profit motive, it did not attract VAT liability. The institution was therefore not a dealer under section 2(h), and the form sale was not business under section 2(e).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=227265</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>