<?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>2015 (10) TMI 854 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265579</link>
    <description>A bank that repossesses hypothecated vehicles on default and sells them by auction can be treated as a dealer under Section 2(15) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 for those disposals. The Court reasoned that the hypothecation agreement authorises repossession and sale for recovery of dues, so the auction is not a voluntary sale by a willing owner but a compulsory realisation mechanism. It also held that Explanation III to Section 2(15) is sufficient to deem banks dealers when they dispose of goods by auction or otherwise for consideration, even where ownership is disputed or the goods are not transferable in the ordinary sense. The issue was decided against the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Jun 2016 16:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=401184" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (10) TMI 854 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265579</link>
      <description>A bank that repossesses hypothecated vehicles on default and sells them by auction can be treated as a dealer under Section 2(15) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 for those disposals. The Court reasoned that the hypothecation agreement authorises repossession and sale for recovery of dues, so the auction is not a voluntary sale by a willing owner but a compulsory realisation mechanism. It also held that Explanation III to Section 2(15) is sufficient to deem banks dealers when they dispose of goods by auction or otherwise for consideration, even where ownership is disputed or the goods are not transferable in the ordinary sense. The issue was decided against the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265579</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>