TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 283X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... slump sale' based on the Business Transfer Agreement dated 24.3.2014. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has to consider the entire agreement which contains various Schedules and in Schedule No.4 of the agreement, the list of immovable properties have been shown. Similarly, in Schedule-5, the list of Wind Mills have been shown. This Business Transfer Agreement read with Sale Deeds as well as other records would show that the entire establishment has been transferred as such. If that be the case, the petitioner's contention ought to have been accepted. Order quashed - Matter remanded back to AO - Decided in favor of assessee. - W.P.No.21511 of 2016 & W.M.P.No.18384 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 28-6-2016 - MR.JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM For the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... part from that various other factual issues were also pointed out, by relying upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 4.The petitioner enclosed the copies of the Business Transfer Agreement for transfer of Wind Division to another Company by agreement dated 24.03.2014. On receipt of the said Agreement another notice was issued by the Assessing Officer on 07.12.2015, wherein the respondent has referred to the stand taken by the petitioner that sale of Wind Mill as 'Slump Sale' and after verifying eight copies of sale deeds produced, pointed out that the petitioner has not paid any Stamp Duty for the value of the Wind Mill and they have paid the amount towards Stamp Duty only for the land value and therefore there is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT), POLLACHI [W.P.No.25953 of 2014 dt.27.10.2014], I had an occasion to consider the somewhat similar issue, as to whether the business has been sold as a Division or the business has been sold as a whole. At this stage, it would be beneficial to refer to the relevant portions of the order, which reads as follows: 4. An identical question came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in which I was a party, in the case of Eicher Motors Limited Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Tax Case (Revision) No.49/13. In the said tax case, the following 3 questions of law were framed for consideration:- 1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Vs. State of Madras, clearly shows the incorrect approach to the case on hand which is distinguishable from the reported decision. A reading of the decision reported in 7 STC 740 (cited supra) shows that what was contemplated in the decision reported in 7 STC 740 in the case of Tools and Machineries Ltd., Vs. State of Madras was sale of entire stock in trade and the assessee continued to be in business and retained certain assets of the business. In that context the decision was made holding that the sale of stock could not be taken as the sale of the entire business. On the facts, thus, projected, this Court pointed out that the sale of the entire stock-intrade as such could not be treated as sale of business in entirety. Thus, when the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the purposes of assessability did not arise. Pointing out to the distinction arising in the case reported in (1977) 39 S.T.C. 317 in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs Thermo Electrics, this Court pointed out that where the assessee retained certain assets and continued the business as a whole, the assessee could not claim the benefit of exemption under the provisions of the Act. 16. The decision reported in 39 STC 325 in the case of Deputy Commissioner (C.T.) Coimbatore Vs. K.Behanan Thomas once again came up for consideration in the decision reported in 51 STC 278 in the case of Monsanto Chemicals of India Ltd., (P) Limited Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, wherein, this Court pointed out that where under the agreement, the assessee sold to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion in connection with or incidental to running of another independent unit of the company, the transaction relating to the transfer of said business had to be treated as sale of the business as a whole; when there was complete cessation of the business activity in relation to one line of manufacture, then the turnover pertaining to the said line of business could not be included in the turnover of the assessee. The petitioner has raised the above contention before the Assessing Officer, while submitting his reply to the notice dated 31.12.2013 and produced the copy of the decision. However, the Assessing Officer did not consider the same. Though the Assessing Officer did not consider the case of Eicher Motors Limited, reliance was placed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
