9911796707
TMI Blog1956 (1) TMI 15X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, 1952. The appli- cants have their office in Nagpur and were registered under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946. They have been carrying on their business of selling or supplying goods in the Province of Bombay, and they have been, therefore, held to be dealers within the meaning of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946, and assessed to the sales tax with penalties under sub-section (5) of section 11 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the authorities below have correctly held that the goods were as a matter of fact sold in Bombay. Two recent decisions of the Supreme Court of India appear to support the view taken by the authorities below. In V.O. Vakkan and Others v. The State of Madras(1), it was held that a person, whether he is a resident or non-resident is a dealer within the meaning of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be carrying on business in Madhya Pradesh and would come within the definition of "dealer" given in section 2(c). Section 2(c) appears to be similar to the definition of "dealer" in the Bombay Sales Tax Act. We, therefore, think that there is no substance in the contention of Shri Thakkar that the applicants are not dealers. 2.. The next argument urged by Shri Thakkar is as regards the applicatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng of section 11A. Provisions similar to sections 11 and 11A are to be found in the Indian Income- tax Act where the expression "escaped assessment" has been construed in the manner in which we are construing sections 11 and 11A. The arguments of Shri Thakkar on this point also do not appear to be correct. 3.. As regards the goods alleged to have been despatched outside the Bombay State, they wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
