1995 (2) TMI 374 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Levy of sales tax - sales turnover of goods sold by the assessee by public auction and the canteen sales made by it during the period April 1 1984 to March 31 1985 - Held that - the Explanation to Section 2(11) of the said Act which had included Railway Administration in dealer has been held to be clarificatory and that Indian Railways represented by the Controller of Stores is a dealer.

Summary

Issues:
Whether the applicant is a dealer within the meaning of section 2(11) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959?

Analysis:
The judgment of the High Court of Bombay was delivered in response to a reference under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, regarding the status of the applicant as a dealer under the Act. The controversy arose from the assessment of the Controller of Stores, Central Railway, Bombay, for the period April 1, 1984, to March 31, 1985, where sales tax was imposed on goods sold by public auction and canteen sales. The Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax and the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal had previously held the applicant liable to pay tax under the Act, leading to this reference.

The applicant argued that the Indian Railways' activities were not commercial but rather public utility services. However, the Court found that the Supreme Court's decision in a similar case involving the Indian Railways established that transportation activities constituted commerce, making the sale of materials ancillary to this commerce. The definition of "dealer" under the Act was crucial, encompassing any person engaged in buying or selling goods, including government entities like the Central Government. The Court emphasized that the profit motive was significant, even if actual profits were not earned.

The Court examined the definition of "business" under the Act and highlighted that the applicant's activities fell within the scope of trade, commerce, or transactions incidental to such activities. The Court referenced an explanatory amendment that clarified the inclusion of specific bodies, including railway administrations, as dealers. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the Indian Railways, represented by the Controller of Stores, Central Railway, Bombay, qualified as a dealer under the Act and was liable to pay sales tax on the relevant transactions.

In light of the above analysis, the Court answered the reference question in the affirmative, ruling in favor of the Revenue. The applicant was directed to bear the costs of the reference.