<?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 (7) TMI 1289 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274800</link>
    <description>A public charitable trust auctioning donated goods was held to fall within the MVAT Act&#039;s definition of &quot;dealer&quot; because the statutory language and deeming explanation expressly covered an auctioneer and charitable trusts selling goods by auction or otherwise for consideration. The trust&#039;s conduct of auctioning donated jewellery and articles, issuing receipts, and realising sale proceeds brought it within the tax net. The Commissioner&#039;s power to grant prospective relief under the determination provision was discretionary, not mandatory, and refusal was upheld where the statutory position was clear and no arbitrariness or legal error was shown. No substantial question of law arose.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Sep 2018 17:59:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=533126" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (7) TMI 1289 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274800</link>
      <description>A public charitable trust auctioning donated goods was held to fall within the MVAT Act&#039;s definition of &quot;dealer&quot; because the statutory language and deeming explanation expressly covered an auctioneer and charitable trusts selling goods by auction or otherwise for consideration. The trust&#039;s conduct of auctioning donated jewellery and articles, issuing receipts, and realising sale proceeds brought it within the tax net. The Commissioner&#039;s power to grant prospective relief under the determination provision was discretionary, not mandatory, and refusal was upheld where the statutory position was clear and no arbitrariness or legal error was shown. No substantial question of law arose.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274800</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>