<?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>1998 (2) TMI 546 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159122</link>
    <description>Exim scrips and REP licences were treated as goods, and their voluntary transfer to the bank for consideration amounted to a purchase rather than a mere surrender. The bank was held to be a dealer because its large-scale, continuous acquisition of such scrips constituted a separate business activity within the broad statutory meaning of business, even though it acted under RBI directions. Section 4(6)(iii) was read as a residuary purchase-tax provision not confined to purchases for resale, and it was not shown to be arbitrary or violative of Article 14. The levy of purchase tax on the bank&#039;s acquisitions was therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Nov 2013 11:11:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=335862" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (2) TMI 546 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159122</link>
      <description>Exim scrips and REP licences were treated as goods, and their voluntary transfer to the bank for consideration amounted to a purchase rather than a mere surrender. The bank was held to be a dealer because its large-scale, continuous acquisition of such scrips constituted a separate business activity within the broad statutory meaning of business, even though it acted under RBI directions. Section 4(6)(iii) was read as a residuary purchase-tax provision not confined to purchases for resale, and it was not shown to be arbitrary or violative of Article 14. The levy of purchase tax on the bank&#039;s acquisitions was therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159122</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>