Sales tax liability depended on the Punjab Act's dealer definition, and lack of profit motive defeated the assessments.

Liability to sales tax under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 turned on whether the appellant fell within the statutory definition of "dealer" for the relevant assessment years. The Punjab Act, not the later Haryana Act, governed those years, and the retrospective language in the Haryana definition could not alter liabilities already incurred. The Court held that the definition under section 2(d) of the Punjab Act remained controlling and that absence of profit motive was material to the inquiry. As the revenue had not established that the appellant carried on business with a profit motive, the assessments could not be sustained and were quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether, for the assessment years in question, the appellant was a "dealer" under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, and whether absence of profit motive excluded liability to sales tax.

Analysis: The applicable charging provision for the relevant years was the Punjab Act, because the Haryana Act had not yet come into force for those assessment years. The definition of "dealer" under section 2(d) of the Punjab Act governed the liability, and that definition did not make profit motive immaterial. The later Haryana definition, including its retrospective language, could not govern liabilities already incurred under the Punjab Act. Since the burden remained on the revenue to establish that the appellant carried on business with a profit motive, the assessments could not stand on the footing adopted by the authorities below.

Conclusion: The issue is answered in favour of the appellant. The appellant was not liable to be assessed on the basis adopted by the revenue, and the assessment proceedings were quashed.

---