<?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>2001 (7) TMI 1273 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161439</link>
    <description>Liability to register as a dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act must be determined independently under that Act, and cannot be created solely by an amendment to the definition of turnover in the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The court noted that the local amendment did not correspond to any change in the Central Sales Tax Act, and that there was no independent material showing the petitioner&#039;s members satisfied the dealer requirements under the central law. Mere ownership of plantations and sale of produce was not enough without proof of business activity with the necessary profit-motive in inter-State trade. Compulsory registration was therefore not justified on the basis of the state amendment alone, though individual cases could still be proceeded with on proper facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Jan 2014 18:16:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=344051" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (7) TMI 1273 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161439</link>
      <description>Liability to register as a dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act must be determined independently under that Act, and cannot be created solely by an amendment to the definition of turnover in the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The court noted that the local amendment did not correspond to any change in the Central Sales Tax Act, and that there was no independent material showing the petitioner&#039;s members satisfied the dealer requirements under the central law. Mere ownership of plantations and sale of produce was not enough without proof of business activity with the necessary profit-motive in inter-State trade. Compulsory registration was therefore not justified on the basis of the state amendment alone, though individual cases could still be proceeded with on proper facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161439</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>