https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350650 The Bombay High Court considered the constitutional validity of the Explanation to Section 2(11) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1954, which deems a Port Trust to be a dealer notwithstanding the ordinary meaning of business. It held that the Forty-sixth Amendment and Article 366(29A) enlarge the field of taxable sales, including transfers not made in pursuance of a contract for valuable consideration, and that sales by the Port Trust under Sections 61 and 62 of the Major Port Trusts Act fall within that enlarged scope. The Court also accepted that the State Legislature could use a deeming fiction for taxation classification. The challenge to Section 2(11) failed, and the Port Trust was liable to sales tax on the impugned sales. en-us Tue, 07 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 28 Apr 2018 13:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350650 The Bombay High Court considered the constitutional validity of the Explanation to Section 2(11) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1954, which deems a Port Trust to be a dealer notwithstanding the ordinary meaning of business. It held that the Forty-sixth Amendment and Article 366(29A) enlarge the field of taxable sales, including transfers not made in pursuance of a contract for valuable consideration, and that sales by the Port Trust under Sections 61 and 62 of the Major Port Trusts Act fall within that enlarged scope. The Court also accepted that the State Legislature could use a deeming fiction for taxation classification. The challenge to Section 2(11) failed, and the Port Trust was liable to sales tax on the impugned sales. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 07 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350650