2025-VIL-1110-MAD
  1. Home
  2. 2025-VIL-1110-MAD

VAT High Court Cases

Tamil Nadu VAT Act, 2006 - Sale of repossessed vehicles by non-banking finance company, VAT liability - The Appellate Tribunal held that the company is liable to pay sales tax on the sale of repossessed vehicles - Whether the petitioner-NBFC would fall within the ambit of "dealer" as per section 2(15) of the TNVAT Act, 2006 – HELD - The nature of transactions carried out by the petitioner is similar to that of HDFC Bank, which was considered by the Court in its earlier decision. The petitioner exercises the right to repossess and sell the hypothecated vehicles under the contract with the borrowers, even without their express consent. The explanation to Section 2(15) of the TNVAT Act includes the disposal of unclaimed goods within the definition of "dealer". The petitioner would fall within the definition of "dealer" under the Act and is liable to pay sales tax on the sale of repossessed vehicles - The petitioner's sale of the repossessed vehicles is in the nature of compulsory sale for realization of debts, and not merely as an agent of the borrower. The petitioner exercises the right to sell the vehicles without the express consent of the borrower, and hence the petitioner would be liable to pay sales tax on such sales - The Tax Case (Revision) is dismissed - Whether the sale of repossessed vehicles on behalf of the defaulting borrower by the petitioner would be liable to pay taxes under the VAT Act – HELD - The petitioner's sale of the repossessed vehicles is in the nature of compulsory sale for realization of debts, and not merely as an agent of the borrower. The petitioner exercises the right to sell the vehicles without the express consent of the borrower, and hence the petitioner would be liable to pay sales tax on such sales - Whether the petitioner is a dealer even though the contractual agreements specifically state that the petitioner is not the owner of the vehicle – HELD - The petitioner's contention that it is not the owner of the vehicles and hence not a "dealer". Even if the petitioner is not the legal owner, the explanation to Section 2(15) includes the disposal of unclaimed goods within the definition of "dealer". Therefore, the petitioner's status as a "dealer" is not affected by the contractual agreements stating that it is not the owner of the vehicles.
Download File
show more Judgements  

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Tax Vista

Your Weekly Tax Recap

By Kasi Viswanathan V

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

GSTR-9 & GSTR-9C of FY24-25
By CA Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?