1974 (4) TMI 88 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the petitioner is a 'dealer' liable to pay sales tax under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act.
2. Whether sales tax can be levied on the petitioner in view of the provisions of article 285 of the Constitution.

Analysis:
The case involved General Sales Tax References where the Tribunal referred two questions of law for the court's opinion. The petitioner, the Union of India, owned a railway canteen at a station in Pathankot. The dispute arose regarding the taxation of the canteen's sale of foodstuffs under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act. The petitioner contended that no tax could be levied due to the exemption under article 285(1) of the Constitution and that the canteen operation was on a no-profit-no-loss basis. The court was tasked with determining the petitioner's liability for sales tax and the applicability of the constitutional provision.

Regarding the second question on the applicability of article 285(1) of the Constitution, the court held that the property of the Union, including goods sold by the railway, is exempt from state taxes. As the goods belonged to the railway at the time of sale, the tax liability rested with the railway itself. Therefore, the court answered the second question in favor of the petitioner, ruling that the sales by the Government were immune from state taxation.

Concerning the first question, the court relied on a previous decision and legal precedents to determine the petitioner's liability as a 'dealer' under the sales tax law. Citing the case law, the court emphasized that for an activity to be considered a business for tax purposes, there must be a profit motive and a course of dealings. The court found that the canteen operation was not conducted with a profit motive but rather as a service, similar to previous cases involving the sale of goods without a profit motive. Therefore, the court answered the first question in favor of the petitioner, holding that the petitioner was not liable to pay sales tax under the Act.

In conclusion, both questions raised by the Tribunal were answered in favor of the petitioner, the Union of India. The court's decision was based on the exemption under article 285(1) of the Constitution and the absence of a profit motive in the canteen operation, aligning with established legal principles and precedents.

The judgment was delivered by Justices Mahajan D.K. and Pritam Singh Pattar, with Justice Pattar concurring with the decision.