1967 (4) TMI 134 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether Travancore Rubber and Tea Co., hereinafter referred to as the assessee, was not a dealer within section 2(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956? Held that - Appeal dismissed. The petitioner in the Instant case owns considerable lands which he cultivates and gets agricultural produce from them. He has also a business. The accounts of the two are separately maintained (which fact the Assistant Commissioner admits in his order in Appeal No. 5060/I.A. 6 of 1954) and the income from agriculture can. be clearly separated from the income of his other business. There is nothing to show that the petitioner acquired these lands with a view to doing the business of selling or supplying agricultural produce.

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the assessee is a "dealer" under section 2(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.
2. Whether the sale of rubber sheets by the assessee constitutes a business activity.
3. Whether the principles laid down in the case of Muhammed v. Sales Tax Officer, Kozhikode, require reconsideration.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the Assessee is a "Dealer" under Section 2(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956:
The primary issue revolves around the interpretation of the term "dealer" as defined under section 2(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The definition states: "'Dealer' means any person who carries on the business of buying and selling goods and includes a Government which carries on such business." The High Court and the Tribunal had both concluded that the assessee, who converts latex tapped from rubber trees into sheets and sells them, did not meet this definition. They relied on the precedent set by the Kerala High Court in Muhammed v. Sales Tax Officer, Kozhikode, which held that the mere sale of rubber sheets produced from latex collected from trees grown by the seller does not make the seller a dealer.

2. Whether the Sale of Rubber Sheets by the Assessee Constitutes a Business Activity:
The High Court held that an agriculturist selling his own produce, either as gathered or after subjecting it to the minimum requirements necessary for transport and marketing, cannot be considered to be engaged in the business of selling. The court stated, "The sale which he effects, as we see it, is only the culmination of his agricultural operations; it is not separate and distinct from his agricultural avocation; and he cannot be considered to be a person carrying on a business of selling simply because he effects a sale of his own agricultural produce."

3. Whether the Principles Laid Down in the Case of Muhammed v. Sales Tax Officer, Kozhikode, Require Reconsideration:
The department had questioned whether the decision in Muhammed v. Sales Tax Officer, Kozhikode, laid down the correct law and whether it required reconsideration. However, the Supreme Court upheld the principles laid down in the Muhammed case, emphasizing that the term "business" implies a course of dealings with a profit motive, and the mere sale of one's own agricultural produce does not constitute a business.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the department had not discharged its burden of proving that the assessee was a "dealer." The court noted, "No effort has been made to find out the intention with which the assessee was formed, the selling organisation it had set up and other relevant facts." Therefore, the appeal was dismissed with costs, and the High Court's judgment was upheld.

Final Judgment:
The appeal was dismissed with costs, affirming that the assessee was not a "dealer" under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and the sale of rubber sheets did not constitute a business activity. The principles laid down in Muhammed v. Sales Tax Officer, Kozhikode, were deemed to be correctly applied.

← Previous Next →