1957 (9) TMI 40 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Registration of a club as a dealer for sales tax purposes.
2. Whether the club's supply of goods to its members constitutes a sale.
3. Determining if the club is carrying on business as a dealer.
4. Failure to pursue available remedies against the registration order.

Analysis:
1. The petition involved a challenge by a club regarding its registration as a dealer for sales tax purposes. The club initially applied for registration but later expressed a desire not to be registered. Despite this, the Sales Tax Officer proceeded with the registration, leading to the club contesting the legality of the levy of sales tax. The club contended that the order assessing its liability and directing payment should be quashed.

2. One of the key contentions raised by the club was that the supply of goods to its members did not amount to a sale as the members were joint owners of the club property. The club argued that the property supplied was not sold but merely a release of joint interest to individual members. However, the court found it difficult to accept this argument, emphasizing that the club had a distinct entity from its members. The court highlighted that the funds of the club, including subscriptions from members, were used to purchase property, and the goods supplied were not considered joint property of the members.

3. The crucial question addressed was whether the club was carrying on business as a dealer, as defined under the Sales Tax Act. The Act defines a dealer as a person engaged in selling or supplying goods as a business. The court emphasized that for the club to be considered a dealer, it must conduct the supply of goods as a business activity. The court noted that if the club was making profits from the supply of goods to its members, it could indicate a business operation under the Act.

4. The judgment highlighted the failure of the club to pursue available remedies against the order of registration as a dealer. The court pointed out that the club had the option to appeal the registration order as per the provisions of the Act. However, the club did not utilize these remedies, which weakened its contention that there was no profit-making motive in the supply of goods to members. The court concluded that without a clear determination on whether the club was conducting business with a profit motive, it could not rule the registration order as erroneous.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the importance of pursuing available remedies and the need for a definitive determination on whether the club was engaged in business activities as a dealer.