1972 (6) TMI 62 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether sales of empty containers and miscellaneous goods by a pharmaceutical company attract sales tax under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act.
2. Whether the definition of "business" under the Act includes transactions ancillary or incidental to the main trade or manufacture.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Calcutta High Court addresses the issue of sales tax liability on the petitioner, a pharmaceutical company, for sales of empty containers and miscellaneous goods. The petitioner contended that such sales were not part of their primary business and hence not taxable. However, the Assistant Commissioner found these sales to be ancillary or incidental to the petitioner's trade or commerce. The court noted that the definition of "business" under the Act includes any transaction connected with or ancillary to trade, commerce, or manufacture. As per the retrospective amendment, if such sales are related to the petitioner's main activities, they are deemed to be part of the business and taxable. The court distinguished a railway case where sales were incidental to operations, unlike the petitioner's case where sales were connected to their manufacturing activities. The judgment emphasized that profit motive is now immaterial under the Act's definition of business, aligning with a Supreme Court decision regarding the inclusive nature of business transactions.

The court also referred to a Supreme Court case involving a textile company's sales of old items, highlighting the concept of "business" as an occupation or profession with a profit motive. However, the judgment clarified that the statutory definition of business under the Act supersedes the commercial understanding, emphasizing that profit need not be the sole motive. The court concluded that the petitioner's sales of empty containers and miscellaneous goods were ancillary to their pharmaceutical manufacturing business, falling within the Act's definition of business. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and the rule discharged, affirming the tax liability on the petitioner for such sales.