1989 (8) TMI 315 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the revision petitioner, a public limited company engaged in rubber cultivation, is liable to pay tax on inter-State sales of rubber.
2. Whether the revision petitioner can be considered a dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act.
3. Interpretation of the definitions of "business" and "dealer" under the Central Sales Tax Act.

Analysis:
1. The revision petitioner, a public limited company involved in rubber cultivation, was assessed for inter-State sales of rubber for the year 1978-79. The Sales Tax Officer held that the company had made inter-State sales without filing C forms, resulting in taxation at 10%. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner affirmed this decision, stating that the company, though claiming to be an agriculturist, was considered a dealer. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal also upheld this decision, leading to the revision petition.

2. The revision petitioner argued that it was not a dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act as it was merely an agriculturist selling rubber produced in its estate. The Tribunal, however, referred to the definition of "dealer" under the Act and concluded that the petitioner fell within its ambit. The Court cited previous judgments highlighting that even agriculturists could be considered dealers under the Act, especially after the amendment in 1976, which broadened the scope of the term "business."

3. The Court analyzed the definitions of "business" and "dealer" under the Central Sales Tax Act. The inclusive definitions encompassed various activities beyond traditional buying and selling, including transactions incidental to business activities. The Court emphasized that the company's systematic rubber cultivation and sales constituted a business activity, as it was carried out for profit and required attention. Therefore, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision that the petitioner qualified as a dealer under the Act, dismissing the revision petition.

In conclusion, the Court affirmed that the revision petitioner, a public limited company engaged in rubber cultivation, was liable to pay tax on its inter-State sales of rubber as it fell within the definition of a dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act.