9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (7) TMI 1271X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in the following factual background: The petitioner is a port trust, constituted under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. It is also a port within the meaning of the Indian Ports Act, 1908. It is charged with the duties and functions enumerated in the above two enactments. To be specific and relevant for the purpose of this case, section 37 empowers the Board to order seagoing vessels to use docks, wharves, etc., and section 35 provides that the Board may execute such works within the limits of the port and provide such appliances as it may deem necessary or expedient; and section 35(i) grants power to the Board for sinking of tube-wells and user of equipments and use of boats, barges and other appliances for the purpose of supplying drinki ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not a dominant or primary activity of the port, and if it is so, the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Board of Trustees of the Port of Madras [1999] 114 STC 520 would squarely cover the issue that arises in this case and therefore, the impugned notice issued by the first respondent is illegal and without authority. 5.. On the other hand, Sri Bhaskar Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes, placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Collector of Customs v. State of West Bengal [1999] 113 STC 167 and a judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Union of India v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1996] 103 STC 34; (1996) 23 APSTJ 84 would maintain that no exception can be taken to the imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nant business activity, then such activity cannot be treated as "business" within the meaning of that term occurring in the definition of the term "dealer" in section 2(d) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. Therefore, the question that arises for consideration in the premise of above ratio is whether the activity of the petitioner herein in selling drinking water to the ships is a dominant or incidental activity of the petitioner port or not. As pointed out supra, the drinking water is supplied by the port in discharge of its statutory obligation imposed on it under section 35(i) of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. A careful perusal of the provisions of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 would indicate that selling of water to the ships ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re the Supreme Court was "whether article 285 of the Constitution debars the imposition of tax upon property belonging to the Customs Department?" The apex Court placing reliance on its earlier judgment of nine-Judge Bench in Sea Customs Act (1878), Section 20(2) case [1964] 3 SCR 787 and New Delhi Municipal Committee v. State of Punjab (1997) 7 SCC 339, opined that the Customs Department was a "dealer" within the meaning of definition of that word in the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. We are at a loss to understand how that judgment would have any bearing on the decision-making in this case. The judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Union of India v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1996] 103 STC 34; (1996) 23 APSTJ 84 is an authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
