TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 335
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er has challenged the order passed by the first respondent dated 09.01.2015 which is an assessment order for the year 2012-2013 on several grounds and also on the ground that the assessment had been finalized without affording an opportunity of personal hearing. The place of business of the petitioner was inspected by the Enforcement Officers on 11.03.2014 and it was stated that on verification of the records it was noticed that the petitioner has sold the project to M/s.Butterfly Gandhimathi Appliances Private Limited on 21.06.2012 during the year 2012-12. The balance sheet for the relevant year was referred to, which shows deletion of certain items, namely, Electrical equipments, Fire fighting equipments and furniture and fittings. Theref....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3. The petitioner's case is that the entire property along with all the movables were sold as a whole and it is a slump sale. Further, the petitioner's contention is that the first respondent has conveniently omitted to note the sale of land and building which was also shown in the very balance sheet of the petitioner for the year 2012-2013 and if one takes a holistic look at the balance sheet, then it will be amply clear that the petitioner had sold the entire business as a whole. The manner in which the authorities have to consider as to whether the claim of the dealer/assessee is correct when they take a stand that they have sold the business as a whole had come up for consideration on several occasions and I had an occasion ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ror of law in emphasizing on the retention of a small part of the assets in the course of business succession, while failing to apply the correct legal test, which was to determine whether the retention of the small part of the assets was to continue in the same line of business or was being retained so as not to burden the Transferee of the business?" The Division Bench, while considering the said question held as follows :- "14.We agree with the above submission of learned counsel appearing for the assessee. At the outset, the view of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal based on the decision reported in 7 STC 740 in the case of Tools and Machineries Ltd., Vs. State of Madras, clearly shows the incorrect approach to the case on ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ness 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 held that the transaction in question would not fall within the scope of the Act at all, consequently, the sale proceeds would not form part of the turnover as defined under the Act. This Court further pointed out that when there was a transfer of the business as a whole or as a going concern, in both the cases, there would be transfers of certain materials. However, when it is a composite sale, the question of bifurcating certain turnover as related to the goods sold for the purposes of assessability did not arise. Pointing out to the disti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in respect of the turnover. 17.In the decision reported in 112 STC 01 in the case of Coromandal Fertilisers Limits Vs. State of A.P., the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court considered a similar question and once again reiterated the law laid down by this Court in the decision reported in 39 STC 325 in the case of Deputy Commissioner (C.T.) Coimbatore Vs. K.Behanan Thomas. The case dealt with by the Andhra Pradesh High Court was similar to the case on hand. The Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court pointed out that when the division of a company, which is operationally and functionally independent for all practical purposes, could not be treated as a transaction in connection with or incidental to running of another i....