Sales tax liability requires a true sale with transfer of property in goods; dealer status alone is insufficient.

Sales tax liability under the Bihar Sales Tax Act arose only where the transaction amounted to a sale involving transfer of property in goods. Mere registration as a dealer, or description as a supplier or commission agent, was not enough to create taxable liability, and the term "supply" could not be read independently of the concept of sale. On the record, there was no evidence of transfer of property in the coal supplied through the assessee, so the transactions were not taxable. The objection of double taxation also failed because prior payment of tax by the collieries on the same transactions was not proved.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee was a dealer and whether the transactions in question were sales liable to tax under the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947; (ii) whether the levy was barred as double taxation under the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee was a dealer and whether the transactions in question were sales liable to tax under the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947.

Analysis: Liability to sales tax arose only if there was a sale within the meaning of the charging provision. The definition of sale required a transfer of property in goods. Mere registration as a dealer, or the description of the assessee as a supplier or commission agent, did not by itself establish taxable sales. The word "supply" in the definition of dealer had to be read with the concept of sale and could not be treated as independently sufficient to attract tax. On the record, there was no evidence showing transfer of property in the coal supplied through the assessee.

Conclusion: The assessee was not liable to be taxed on the transactions, as the transactions did not constitute sales within the meaning of the Act.

Issue (ii): Whether the levy was barred as double taxation under the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947.

Analysis: The plea of double taxation depended on proof that tax had already been paid by the collieries in respect of the same transactions or the same series of transactions. The authorities below had concurrently found that no evidence established such prior payment. In the absence of proof, section 8 could not be invoked to invalidate the assessment on this ground.

Conclusion: The plea of double taxation failed.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered in substance in favour of the assessee on the main taxability issue, while the objection based on double taxation was rejected for want of proof.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Bihar Sales Tax Act, tax can be levied only where the transaction amounts to a sale involving transfer of property in goods, and the definition of dealer cannot by itself create tax liability in the absence of such a sale.

---