9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (6) TMI 553X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d area, with an additional extent of 2,527 hectares, which is said to be immature area. The rubber grown in these estates is also admittedly sold by the petitioner. The petitioner maintains an office at Nagercoil for the purpose of effecting the sales. It has been noticed by the appellate authority, in the course of his order, that the petitioner had not denied anywhere the fact that it has a selling organisation. 2.. The contention that was advanced by the petitioner before the assessing authority, the appellate authority and the Tribunal was that it was an agriculturist and, therefore, by definition, it could not be regarded as a person carrying on business of selling or supplying goods and no sales tax under the Central Sales Tax Act c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Supreme Court in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Quilon v. Travancore Rubber and Tea Co. [1967] 20 STC 520, to the case of Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Quilon v. Midland Rubber and Produce Co. Ltd. [1970] 25 STC 57. The Supreme Court, however, did not state the proposition in the manner contended for by the petitioner before us. The apex Court, in the decision rendered in Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Quilon v. Travancore Rubber and Tea Co. [1967] 20 STC 520, did not rule out the possibility of an agriculturist selling his produce being regarded as a dealer. The court considered the existence or otherwise of factors such as profit-mo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the association which filed that writ petition. 7.. Learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly brought to our notice the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Nilambur Rubber Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala in Civil Appeal Nos. 994-95 of 1991 decided on 13th January, 1998. The Supreme Court, in that case, directed the assessing authority to re-examine the question as to whether the petitioner before it could be regarded as a dealer in the light of such material as the State may choose to place before the authority. It was not held by that court that as the appellant before it was an agriculturist and producer of rubber, it was ipso facto not to be regarded as a dealer. The court clearly recognised the possibility of agriculturist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
