<?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 (10) TMI 525 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160038</link>
    <description>Transfer of an entire business undertaking or a closed division as a going concern for a lump sum consideration was not treated as a sale in the course of business under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. The charging provision applied only to transactions by a dealer carried on in the course of buying, selling or otherwise dealing in goods, and the inclusive definition of business did not extend to a complete disposal that amounted to winding up or closing that unit. The continued operation of another line of business did not make the closure of one independent unit incidental or ancillary to the ongoing business, and the absence of frequency, continuity and regularity reinforced the non-taxable character.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Oct 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Dec 2013 15:16:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=338492" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (10) TMI 525 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160038</link>
      <description>Transfer of an entire business undertaking or a closed division as a going concern for a lump sum consideration was not treated as a sale in the course of business under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. The charging provision applied only to transactions by a dealer carried on in the course of buying, selling or otherwise dealing in goods, and the inclusive definition of business did not extend to a complete disposal that amounted to winding up or closing that unit. The continued operation of another line of business did not make the closure of one independent unit incidental or ancillary to the ongoing business, and the absence of frequency, continuity and regularity reinforced the non-taxable character.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Oct 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160038</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>