<?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>1997 (9) TMI 583 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159448</link>
    <description>Liability to purchase tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act turned on whether a temple&#039;s preparation and supply of panchamirtham prasadam amounted to business by a dealer. The Court applied the settled principle that dealer status requires activity with the character of commercial business, not merely incidental receipts. As the temple&#039;s dominant object was religious and charitable, and the prasadam supply and purchase of jaggery were only incidental to worship and distribution, the activity was not trade or commerce. Collection from devotees did not change that character. The temple was therefore outside the taxing provisions, and purchase tax on jaggery used for prasadam was not leviable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 Nov 2013 16:11:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=337102" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (9) TMI 583 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159448</link>
      <description>Liability to purchase tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act turned on whether a temple&#039;s preparation and supply of panchamirtham prasadam amounted to business by a dealer. The Court applied the settled principle that dealer status requires activity with the character of commercial business, not merely incidental receipts. As the temple&#039;s dominant object was religious and charitable, and the prasadam supply and purchase of jaggery were only incidental to worship and distribution, the activity was not trade or commerce. Collection from devotees did not change that character. The temple was therefore outside the taxing provisions, and purchase tax on jaggery used for prasadam was not leviable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159448</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>