TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 1192
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sues involved in the order of assessment, the challenge in this proceedings is only relating to two viz., [i] reversal of ITC on account of cross verification of Annexure I of the buyer with that of Annexure - II of the seller of other end Rs. 94,03,130/- and [ii] regarding levy of tax on intellectual property purchased and used. The above two issues have been dealt with by the respondent in the impugned order as D.No.2 and D.No.3 of the order. With regard to the other issues, it is left open to the petitioner to workout their remedies under the Act. 3. The petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated 31.03.2015 which emanated out of an inspection of the place of business of the petitioner by the Enforcement Officials on 20.01.2015. I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2 of the Act. 4.With regard to issue No.2 regarding the reversal of ITC on account of cross verification of Annexure I of the seller, the authority stated that the bills for the turnover of Rs. 25,65,486/- has not been produced for which the tax implication is Rs. 10,300/- and proposed reversal of the amount of Rs. 94,03,130/-. With regard to issue No.3, i.e., D.No.3 in the impugned order, the petitioner in their reply dated 25.08.2015 stated that they entered into business transfer agreement and referred to Clause 2.1.1 and Clause 2.2 of the agreement and submitted that the subject matter of transfer is the business as a whole; the contract is for transfer of business; there is no conduct of sale for any asset or goods. The attention of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Cavasjee Cooper V. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 564 for their contention that a business is not goods. With the above submission, the petitioner requested to drop further proceedings, pursuant to the show cause notice. 5. So far as the issue No.2 is concerned, a detailed explanation was submitted and the decisions in the case of (i) Sri Vinayaga Agencies V. Assistant Commissioner, Vadapalani Assessment Circle, Chennai and another, 60 VST 283; (ii) Infinity Wholesale Ltd., W.P.No.9265/2013 dated 06.11.2014; (iii) Tulsyan NEC W.P.No.21453/08 dated 09.01.2015, were referred to and they requested the proceedings be dropped. 6. That apart, a representation was sent on 11.03.2016 stating that calling upon the petitioner to produce the purcha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....homas), we find the facts therein was that the assessee sold the branch at Ooty as a whole, consequent on which the Branch itself was closed thereafterwards. Thus, on the closure of a branch by sale thereof as a running concern, this Court held that the sale proceeds in question could not be taken as a part of the turnover, consequently, the question of denying the exemption to the assessee did not arise. This Court pointed out that the sale of stock-in-trade for the purposes of closing down the business is different from the sale of the business as a whole as running concern; the sale of the business, lock, stock and barrel, was not incidental or ancillary to the carrying on of a business so as to be taxable under the Act. Thus, this Court....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of business and each line of business would be a unit of business by itself; if there is a sale of that unit of the business as a whole, then the assessee would not be liable to be taxed either on the general principle that there is no sale in the course of business, since closure of a line of business could not be incidental or ancillary to its carrying on or on the alternative basis of application of Rule 6(d) of Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959. Thus, on facts once again, this Court held that the assessee was eligible for exemption in respect of the turnover." 7. Therefore, the respondent was required to examine that the said issue, peruse the business transfer agreement and if necessary call for other records to find out as t....