https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163633 Sale of movable assets on closure of business did not amount to a sale "during the course of business" under the M. P. Vanijyik Kar Adhiniyam, 1994. The Court reasoned that the charging provision and the definition of "dealer" require a continuous, systematic business activity, not a one-time disposal of assets while winding up operations. Because the transfer of assets under the MOU was part of closure and not trading in the ordinary course, the transaction fell outside the tax net. The tax demand and the connected penalty therefore could not be sustained. en-us Wed, 18 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 05 Apr 2014 16:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163633 Sale of movable assets on closure of business did not amount to a sale "during the course of business" under the M. P. Vanijyik Kar Adhiniyam, 1994. The Court reasoned that the charging provision and the definition of "dealer" require a continuous, systematic business activity, not a one-time disposal of assets while winding up operations. Because the transfer of assets under the MOU was part of closure and not trading in the ordinary course, the transaction fell outside the tax net. The tax demand and the connected penalty therefore could not be sustained. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 18 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163633