1977 (4) TMI 153

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and drawing frames. The assessee is a manufacturer of cotton yarn and he claimed that he did not carry on any business in carding machines and drawing frames, etc. He had purchased these goods for use in the manufacture of yarn. According to the assessee, he did not purchase them with the intention of carrying on any business in these goods and that they were not by-products or subsidiary products as these goods were the assets of the assessee and, as they were sold when they were not serviceable, the sale could not be said to be a sale in the course of business. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal accepted this submission of the assessee and held that the assessee could not be taxed on the said amount. The question that requires to be conside....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dhra Pradesh in annual auctions. The Supreme Court held that though in view of the amendment introduced to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, the consideration of profit-motive could not be regarded as an essential constituent of the term "business" in section 2(1)(bbb) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, but still the other ingredients of the term "business", viz., volume, frequency, continuity and regularity of transactions of sale and purchase, must be satisfied in order that a person could be said to be carrying on the business of selling goods. In our opinion, the Supreme Court had no occasion to consider the case of a trader or a manufacturer who, in the course of his trade or manufacturing activity, had to sell certai....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sistant Commissioner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that section 10 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act stipulated that the burden of proving that any dealer is not liable to tax in respect of any of his transactions shall lie on such dealer and that, in the present case, the assessee had not adduced any proof. Therefore, he confirmed the assessment. On further appeal, the Tribunal, after referring to the above aspect stated by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in his order, held that the assessee was not a dealer in electrical goods and that, therefore, it stood to reason that they must have purchased the electrical goods from some other dealers and they should be the second dealers. For the said reason, the Tribunal hel....