Skip to content


Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Sanghai Finance Corporation - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case Number M.C.C. No. 195 of 1982
Judge
Reported in[1984]55STC197(MP)
AppellantCommissioner of Sales Tax
RespondentSanghai Finance Corporation
Appellant Advocate Surjeet Singh, Adv.
Respondent Advocate G.M. Chaphekar, Adv.
Cases Referred(Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Ratlam Straw
Excerpt:
- indian penal code, 1890.section 306 :[dalveer bhandari & harjit singh bedi,jj] abetment of suicide deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - ocular evidence was sketchy - dying declaration recorded by tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence held, though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and heavily on him to prove his innocence. conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. .....not necessary for rendering a sale exigible to tax to show that the sale is of a commodity in which the assessee carries on business. therefore the fact that the assessee is not a dealer in cars is not decisive and as the sale of the car by the assessee is connected with the business of the assessee, the transaction of sale in question is 'business' within the meaning of that expression in section 2(bb) of the act and is exigible to tax.5. for all these reasons, our answer to the question referred to this court by the tribunal is in the negative and against the assessee. in the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
Judgment:

G.G. Sohani, J.

1. By this reference under Section 44 of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Board of Revenue has referred the following question of law to this Court for its opinion :

Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that sale of old car by the appellant could not be included in the turnover and was exempt, when the appellant is a dealer in purchase and sale of motor cars on hire-purchase agreement basis and when that car as sold was being used by the appellant for business purposes ?

2. The material facts giving rise to this reference briefly are as follows :

The assessee carries on business of financing hire-purchase transactions in motor vehicles. While framing assessment for the assessment year 1970-71, the assessing authority found that the assessee had sold a car for Rs. 40,000. The assessing authority held that this amount was liable to be included in the taxable turnover of the assessee. In the appeal preferred by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the finding of the assessing authority was affirmed. In the second appeal before the Board, the Board held that the assessee was not a dealer in automobiles, that the transaction in question was a casual one involving purchase of a second hand car which was subsequently sold, and therefore, the transaction was not liable to be included in gross or taxable turnover of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Board, the department sought a reference and it is at the instance of the department that the aforesaid question of law has been referred to this Court for its opinion.

3. Shri Joshi, the learned Government Advocate, appearing for the department, contended that in view of the definition of 'business' in Section 2(bb) of the Act, the Board erred in holding that as the assessee was not a dealer in motor vehicles, the sale of the car in question was not exigible to tax. It was urged that as the case of the assessee was that the car was purchased for office use the transaction of sale of that car was in connection with and incidental to the business of the assessee. In reply, Shri Chaphekar, the learned counsel for the assessee contended that the decision in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Shamandas Narayandas, Jabalpur (printed infra) [1982] 15 VKN 52 was attracted in the instant case and the sale of the car could not be held to be a transaction amounting to the business of the assessee.

4. Now the decision in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Shamandas Narayandas, Jabalpur (printed infra) [1982] 15 VKN 52 is distinguishable on facts. In that case, the finding by the Tribunal was that the car which was sold by the assessee was not used as ancillary to the assessee's business. In the instant case, however, the contention of the assessee before the Tribunal was that the car in question was for the office use of the assessee and that its sale proceeds were not exigible to tax as the assessee was not a dealer in cars. That is why in the question referred to this Court it is stated that the car was used by the assessee for business purposes and we must, therefore, proceed on the basis that the finding of the Tribunal is that the car was used by the assessee for business purposes. In Misc. Civil Case No. 129 of 1981. (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Ratlam Straw-board Mills Private Ltd., Ratlam [-1984] 55 STC 194) we have held that in view of the enlarged definition of 'business' under the Act, it is not necessary for rendering a sale exigible to tax to show that the sale is of a commodity in which the assessee carries on business. Therefore the fact that the assessee is not a dealer in cars is not decisive and as the sale of the car by the assessee is connected with the business of the assessee, the transaction of sale in question is 'business' within the meaning of that expression in Section 2(bb) of the Act and is exigible to tax.

5. For all these reasons, our answer to the question referred to this Court by the Tribunal is in the negative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //