9911796707
TMI Blog1964 (8) TMI 65X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 1963 relates to the assessment year 1958-59 and T.R.C. No. 45 of 1963 to the assessment year 1959-60. The Appellate Tribunal held that the sales were not taxable as they were not regular dealers in the commodities sold. The facts are these: Messrs. Gannon Dunkerley Co., Madras (Private) Ltd., are works contractors and registered dealers in sanitary wares, sundry articles, etc. They have their head office at Madras and branches at Hyderabad, Visakhapatnam, Vijayawada, Rajahmundry, etc. Their office at Rajahmundry is the principal place of business in the State of Andhra Pradesh. For the year of assessment 1958-59 a sum of Rs. 31,941-06 representing the sales of sundry articles to writ, cement bags, casurina poles, iron scrap etc., was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said sales. We will presently examine these contentions. The term "sale" is defined in section 2(n) of the Act as meaning "every transfer of the property in goods by one person to another in the course of trade or business for cash, or for deferred payment, or for any other valuable consideration, etc." Section 2(e) defines "dealer" as meaning "any person who carries on the business of buying, selling, supplying or distributing goods, directly or otherwise, whether for cash, or for deferred payment, etc." The sum and substance of Sri Chari's contention is that the assessee does not carry on the business of buying and selling articles like cement, casurina poles, scrap iron, etc., and is therefore not a dealer, and a sale of those goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iness which the assessee carries on and he has to effect sales of such surplus material there is no reason why he cannot be regarded as a dealer selling goods in the course of his business." The learned Judges observed further that the question to be considered in a case of this kind was whether the sale in question was a business activity carried on by the assessee, that is to say, whether the sale had any reasonable connection with the normal course of business of the assessee and whether the intention of the assessee was to effect that sale in the course of that business. Rejecting the contention that there was no profit motive, the learned Judges observed that the question was not whether a particular sale resulted in a profit or a lo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the sale effected and the nature of the business carried or by the dealer, then the sale cannot be said to be in the course of the business of the dealer, and its sale proceeds cannot therefore be included in his turnover." Sri Ranganathachari relied on Ambica Mills Ltd., and Others v. State of Gujarat and Another[1964] 15 S.T.C. 367. In that case the assessee owned textile mills in Ahmedabad which they had purchased as going concerns. Thereafter they embarked upon a programme of modernizing its machinery and as part of that programme they sold old looms, carding engines and other machinery during the assessment year 1953-54. They realised Rs. 2,01,808. They collected also sales tax from the purchasers. The question was whether on the fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
