9911796707
TMI Blog1957 (2) TMI 46X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o sales tax. The three cases were disposed of by the first respondent (the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax) by a common order passed in Sales Tax Appeal No. 5060/I.A. 6, impugned in Miscellaneous Petition No. 131 of 1956. 3.. The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner was an occupant of 542 acres and 32 gunthas of land in eight villages in Akot tahsil of Akola District. In 440.77 acres of land he had sown and raised crops of cotton, groundnuts and grain. After meeting his personal require ments the balance of the crops were sold by the petitioner, during three periods under assessment, for Rs. 69,442-11-3 (subject-matter of M.P. No. 130 of 1956). for Rs. 29,423-12-6 (subject-matter of M.P. No. 131 of 1956). for Rs. 88,602-1-3 (subje ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt No. 2) took is best expressed in his own words as follows: "A person carrying on business of selling or supplying goods is a dealer and is liable to pay sales tax even if in the course of such business of selling or supplying such goods, he sells the agricultural pro- duce of his own fields. What is important is that he must be a dealer as defined in section 2(c) of the Sales Tax Act." Since the petitioner was already registered as a dealer, upon this view, the Sales Tax Officer had no difficulty in assessing the petitioner to sales tax in respect of the agricultural produce of his fields. 8.. In appeal the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax (Respondent No.1) in his order in Sales Tax Appeal No. 5060/I-A-6 of 1954 referred to rule 7(2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us here. 10.. There can be no dispute that the produce of the petitioner's fields were goods or that he sold them as such. The question which falls to be decided is whether the petitioner was a "dealer" in respect of these goods. 11.. On a reading of the provisions of the Act it appears to us that the intention of the Act was in all cases to tax the sale or purchase of goods in Madhya Pradesh which are transferred in the course of "the business of selling or supplying goods". This is clear from a reading of the definition of a "dealer" in clause (c) of section 2, and therefore the further question that arises is whether in the circumstances of the present case the sale of the agricultural produce of his fields by the petitioner could am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tting company, trying it by the use of ordinary colloquial language? The same observation may be made as regards a single individual buying or selling land, with this addition, that he may make it a business, and then it is a question of continuity. A man occasionally buys and sells lands, as many land-owners do, and nobody would say he was land-jobber or dealer in land, but if a man made it his particular business to buy and sell and to obtain profit, he would be designated as a land-jobber or dealer in land." Though the judgment of Jessel, M.R., was not accepted in the Court of Appeal, it was not reversed on this part of his observations but on a different aspect of the case. The observations which we have quoted above would thus lend s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore decision to which one may usefully refer and that is Raja Visheshwar v. Province of Bihar [1951] 2 S.T.C. 129. In the course of his judgment Manohar Lall, J., observed: "In the present case before me all that I find is that the plaintiff owns agricultural zirat lands which he cultivates and from which he produces the goods. This is one operation. Now, he cannot consume all the goods and he must sell the excess if he does not require all for his own consumption. How can the mere fact of selling the excess make the plaintiff carry on a business of selling the produce? See the case of Kokine Dairy, Rangoon [1938] 6 I.T.R. 502. , where a diary business was being carried on by an assessee owning agricultural lands." Like the case before Mano ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ness. The accounts of the two are separately maintained (which fact the Assistant Commissioner admits in his order in Appeal No. 5060/I.A. 6 of 1954) and the income from agriculture can be clearly separated from the income of his other business. There is nothing to show that the petitioner acquired these lands with a view to doing "the business of selling or supplying" agricultural produce. According to him, he is principally an agriculturist who also deals in cotton, coal, oil-seeds and groundnuts. No doubt, he was carrying on agricultural business, but prima facie, that was for the purpose of earning income from his fields. There is nothing in the orders of the Sales Tax Authorities to show that the lands were acquired with the primary in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
