1977 (11) TMI 122

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... assessment period 1st January, 1963, to 31st December, 1963. All these references have been made at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax. In all these references two common questions have been referred to us and these are as follows: "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has erred in holding that the opponent is not a 'dealer' within the contemplation of section 2(11) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, and other provisions of that Act? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has erred in holding that the purchases of material made by the opponent for construction of buildings were not purchases made in the course of its business as a dealer under th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....st January, 1963, to 31st December, 1963. The Sales Tax Officer assessing the respondents included all the purchases made by the respondents in their turnover of purchases including the purchases of scaffolding materials made by the respondents. The respondents filed appeals against these orders before the Assistant Sales Tax Commissioner, inter alia, contending that the purchases of scaffolding materials were not purchases made by the respondents in the course of business of the respondents, because the said scaffolding materials were capital assets. The Assistant Commissioner negatived that contention and dismissed the appeals. The respondents then preferred second appeals before the Sales Tax Tribunal. The Tribunal following an earlier d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... without which such business activity would not exist. They must not be goods which are adjuncts to the carrying on of the business or goods which form part of the capital assets of the dealer. In Famous Cine Laboratory and Studio Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra[1975] 36 S.T.C. 104., we have reaffirmed the aforestated principle. We find that in the present case the respondents had specifically taken up the contention before the Assistant Commissioner that, as far as the purchases of scaffolding materials were concerned, they were not purchases made by the respondents in the course of their business because the scaffolding materials constituted assets of a capital nature or capital goods as far as the respondents were concerned. This contention....