TMI Blog1983 (12) TMI 265X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... car. That contention of the assessee was rejected by the assessing authority on the ground that though the assessee is not dealing in cars, he has sold the car incidentally in the course of his business and that, therefore, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Burmah Shell Co. Ltd. [1973] 31 STC 426 (SC), even casual transactions of sale which is incidental to the main business of the assessee are taxable under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The assessee appealed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, disputing amongst other things, his liability to pay sales tax on the sale of the used car. Before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the assessee contended that even if the sales turnover of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view of the decision of this Court in Govindan Co. v. State of Tamil Nadu [1975] 35 STC 50. There is no dispute as regards the facts. One Hukarni Chand of this State has purchased the car from a party in Karnataka State. From the said Hukami Chand, the assessee has purchased the car after Hukarni Chand had used the car for some years. Thereafter, the assessee had sold the car which he had purchased from Hukami Chand earlier, during the assessment year 1979-80. On these admitted facts, the question is, whether the assessee can claim exemption on the ground that his sale is the second sale within the State. 3.. The object of giving exemption for second sale is to see that in a series of sales in the State, the first sale is to be taxed an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot be taxed as it is not the first sale. Therefore to carry out the object of the Act in giving exemption to second sales, it must be established by the dealer who claims the exemption that the first sale or the earlier sale is a taxable sale. In this case, there has been no investigation as to whether Hukami Chand, who effected the first sale of the car in this State, is a dealer or not. Both the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal have merely stated that Hukami Chand is a private person and therefore, he cannot be taken to be a dealer. Even a private person can be a dealer and the question whether he is a dealer or not will depend upon the nature of the activity he is carrying on. Therefore, it cannot outright be said that H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
