Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2019 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 1290 - MADRAS HIGH COURTAttachment of property - scope of term "or otherwise" within the definition of "dealer" - carrying business through Vendor - directly or indirectly - whether the writ petitioner's vendor is a 'dealer' within the meaning of Section 2(n) of PVAT Act? HELD THAT:- As 'registered dealer' has been separately defined under Section 2(zc), it is clear that 'or otherwise' should be read with wide amplitude and should be understood as words used as extension include all possible ways of carrying on business activities. However, on an extreme demurrer, now that this Court has clearly come to the conclusion that the generic words 'or otherwise' will only qualify 'directly', even if ejusdem generis principle is applied, it would at best read directly or indirectly. Even if 'directly or otherwise' is read as 'directly or indirectly', it would only mean 'any person' who carries on any or some of the kinds of business activities enumerated in Section 2(n) directly or indirectly. In the instant case, it is the case of writ petitioner's vendor's mother carrying on three of the business activities, namely buying, selling and distributing petroleum products indirectly through her son. This Court having come to the conclusion that writ petitioner is carrying on business as a dealer not directly, but otherwise, even on an extreme demurrer, even if the expression 'or otherwise' is to be given a restricted meaning, it will still cover writ petitioner's vendor. The writ petitioner's vendor qualifies as a 'dealer' within the meaning of Section 2(n) and that writ petitioner's vendor's property i.e., said property will clearly be covered under Section 37(1) of PVAT Act. With regard to proviso to Section 37(2) which deals with bonafide transfer, there is copious and undisputed material before this Court to show that writ petitioner was carrying on day-today affairs of the business and in any event, learned senior counsel for writ petitioner made it clear that writ petitioner does not want to tread into that arena. Therefore this Court deems it appropriate to not to delve into the same any further. In the instant case, this Court expresses no opinion as to whether writ petitioner is a bonafide third party purchaser or not in the light of trajectory of the hearing. Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
|