9911796707
TMI Blog1960 (5) TMI 21X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is conducted seems to be that Dr. Desai examines patients to whom he gives prescriptions and those prescriptions are presented to the Pearl & Co., which sells the medicines. 2.. For the period from 1st April, 1954, to 31st March, 1955, the Sales Tax Officer, while assessing the firm, included in the turnover of the firm the receipts from the prescriptions and the question which Mr. Mehta for the applicants has raised is whether the receipt of Rs. 6,998-8-0 are taxable in the hands of the applicants 3.. Now, as regards certain facts there seems to be no dispute. In the first place, Dr. Desai is one of the two partners composing the partnership firm. It is not in dispute that Dr. Desai does consultation work in the same premises in which P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation payable to a dealer for the sale of any goods. Section 2(20) defines the expression "turnover of sales" as meaning the aggregate of the amounts of sale price received and receivable by a dealer in respect of any sale of goods made during a given period. It is clear, therefore, that what is taxable under the law is the sale of goods. Mr. Mehta argues that whatever professional services, rendered by Dr. Desai cannot be the subject of sales tax, although Dr. Desai happens to be a partner of the partnership firm which is a dealer. Mr. Mehta would seem to be right. What is taxable is the sale of goods and not the rendering of professional services, and this, I think, is elementary. But the difficulty in the way of Mr. Mehta is that it is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sultation fees charged by Dr. Desai, that certainly cannot constitute a sale of goods within the meaning of section 2(8), but in the absence of any material one can only conclude, so far as this case is concerned, that the amount of the receipts represented by the prescriptions cannot be other than the sale of goods for the purpose of section 8. This being our view on the materials of the record of this case, we are unable to accept the contention of Mr. Mehta that the receipts of Rs. 6,998-8-0 are not taxable in the hands of the applicants. In view of this conclusion, the order which is sought to be revised is clearly right. The application must, therefore, fail and will be dismissed.
Application dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
