TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1984 (4) TMI 277
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ters referred to in para 7 of the judgment of the Tribunal and the evidence of Mr. Fernandes, the rent collector, the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the opponentcompany did not succeed to the business of Shri Kishinchand Tolaram in whole or in part, within the meaning of sub-section (4) of section 19 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959? " M/s. Tolaram, which was a proprietary concern of Mr. Kishinchand Tolaram, was doing business at 36, Colaba Road, Bombay-5, in textile fabrics, PVC plastic goods, cycle parts, etc., as an unregistered dealer. The said premises in which the business was carried on belonged to PRO-Cathedral of the Holy Name and were taken on rent from them by M/s. Tolaram. When M/s. Tolaram was assessed fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed that they had taken the tenancy rights of the premises from the landlord directly and had not purchased the goodwill or stock-in-trade of M/s. Tolaram. The Sales Tax Officer after taking into consideration certain correspondence exchanged between the company, the landlord and M/s. Tolaram held that the company was a transferee of M/s. Tolaram under section 19(4) of the Act. This order of the Sales Tax Officer was challenged by the company by filing an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner upheld the order of the Sales Tax Officer and dismissed the appeal. The company filed a second appeal before the Tribunal. On a consideration of the five letters dated December 18, 1961, January 5, 1962, January 11, 1962, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng with furniture, etc., is referred to and does not support the contention of Mr. Jetley that a transfer of business had taken place. There is no other definite material on record to show that there was a transfer of business in favour of the company. The department could have got produced the accounts of the company to show that certain amount was paid for transfer of the business in their favour. It does not appear that the stock books of the company were examined. The entries in the stock book could have thrown light on the question as to whether the furniture or any other goods belonging to M/s. Tolaram was transferred to the company. If it was a case of a transfer of a going concern along with its tenancy rights one would not have ord....