Find a Lawyer

SALES TAX APPEAL NO. K-153 OF 2000, DECIDED ON 16TH SEPTEMBER, 2005. versus SALES TAX APPEAL NO. K-153 OF 2000, DECIDED ON 16TH SEPTEMBER, 2005.

Section 2 (12), (32), (33), (35), 3 and 46 on sales of leased goods and sales tax on the amount received from the insurance company upon loss of motorbike appeal from the appellate tribunal. Wind. In the present case, on the loss of motorized goods, the goods leased by the appellant from the insurance company and tax on the amount received, were leased to the appellant by the goods received on the lease. Was not leased, but was leased, and after the lease agreement expired, the leased goods did not transfer from one person to another, but they remained with the lenders and no sales tax was imposed. This lease could not be treated as a transaction when the property was not transferred from one person to another. Used to go Sales tax was not payable; Department representative could not specify which section of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, the amount of insurance received by the appellant due to the loss of motor vehicle, is responsible for sales tax. , Such money did not fall under the definition. The name of the goods under section 2 (12) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, also did not fall under section 2 (35) of the said Act, in which the taxable defined defined appellant, in the circumstances, on the amount. There was no sales tax liability. Receipt on the goods received by the insurance company for the loss of the motorbike sales tax and the amount received by the appellant from the insurance company was r \ n \ r \ n power of attorney advocate Kech lawyer