Saving clause preserved sales tax assessments, while regular sale of Ayurvedic preparation constituted business as a dealer.

A repealing and saving clause in the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act preserved liabilities, proceedings and assessment machinery under the repealed Madras General Sales Tax Act, so assessments made after repeal remained valid. The article also states that a person who advertises, receives postal orders for, and regularly sells an Ayurvedic preparation carries on business as a dealer, and the exemption for a medical practitioner dispensing only to his own patients does not apply on such facts. Estimated turnover additions for post-sales were deleted as unsupported, while the cash-sales addition required fresh enquiry and reconsideration on remand.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether assessments made after repeal of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 were saved by the repealing and saving provision in the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act; (ii) whether the appellant was a dealer carrying on business in the Ayurvedic preparation and whether he qualified for exemption as a medical practitioner dispensing only to his patients; (iii) whether the additions made to the turnover on account of post sales and cash sales were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether assessments made after repeal of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 were saved by the repealing and saving provision in the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act.

Analysis: The saving provision preserved the previous operation of the repealed Act and saved liabilities, actions, orders and proceedings taken under it. It also deemed acts done in exercise of powers under the repealed Act to have been done under the new Act, thereby continuing the assessment machinery and the liability to sales tax.

Conclusion: The assessments were valid and were not rendered invalid by the repeal.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant was a dealer carrying on business in the Ayurvedic preparation and whether he qualified for exemption as a medical practitioner dispensing only to his patients.

Analysis: The preparation was advertised for sale, orders were received by post, V.P.P. coupons showed regular sales, and no patient registers or prescriptions were produced. On those facts, the activity was held to answer the statutory idea of business, and the preparation was treated as goods sold in the course of trade. The exemption applied only where a medical practitioner owned a dispensary and dispensed medicines solely to his own patients; the proved facts did not fit that category.

Conclusion: The appellant was a dealer, and the claim to exemption failed.

Issue (iii): Whether the additions made to the turnover on account of post sales and cash sales were sustainable.

Analysis: The estimated additions for sales on days not covered by the seized coupons were held to have no reasonable basis, since the seized coupons and abstracts were treated as representing the post sales actually made. The cash sales addition, however, lacked supporting enquiry material, and the record did not permit its confirmation.

Conclusion: The addition for estimated post sales was deleted, and the cash sales component was remanded for fresh enquiry.

Final Conclusion: The assessments survived in principle, but the turnover required modification by deleting the unsupported post-sales addition and by reconsidering the cash-sales estimate on remand.

Ratio Decidendi: A saving clause preserves assessment liability and proceedings under the repealed sales tax law, and a person who manufactures, advertises, and regularly sells a commodity for consideration carries on business as a dealer notwithstanding that he is a medical practitioner.

---