<?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>2024 (6) TMI 489 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753882</link>
    <description>A composite transfer of a domestic pharmaceutical business under a business transfer agreement was treated as a slump sale of a going concern, not a taxable sale of goods under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act. Read holistically, the agreement showed a lock, stock and barrel transfer for a lump sum consideration, and separate valuation entries for stamp duty did not change its commercial character. The review authority could not dissect the bargain by isolating intangible rights for separate VAT treatment, as review power was confined to escaped or under-assessed turnover. The review order was also said to suffer from breach of natural justice and non-application of mind, and the demand was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Jun 2024 03:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=756180" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (6) TMI 489 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753882</link>
      <description>A composite transfer of a domestic pharmaceutical business under a business transfer agreement was treated as a slump sale of a going concern, not a taxable sale of goods under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act. Read holistically, the agreement showed a lock, stock and barrel transfer for a lump sum consideration, and separate valuation entries for stamp duty did not change its commercial character. The review authority could not dissect the bargain by isolating intangible rights for separate VAT treatment, as review power was confined to escaped or under-assessed turnover. The review order was also said to suffer from breach of natural justice and non-application of mind, and the demand was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT / Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753882</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>