Dealer status under sales tax law requires business of selling; sale of one's own rubber sheets was insufficient.

Growers who collect latex from trees cultivated by them, convert it into rubber sheets only to make it marketable, and sell the product are not automatically "dealers" under the General Sales Tax Act. Dealer status requires carrying on the business of buying or selling goods, and mere sale of one's own agricultural produce does not by itself satisfy that test. The distinction between an agriculturist and a dealer remains material, though a different result may arise where there is additional buying or trading in latex or rubber sheets from others. On these facts, the notices could not be sustained and were quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether growers of rubber who collect latex, convert it into rubber sheets and sell them are "dealers" within the meaning of the General Sales Tax Act, 1125.

Analysis: Liability to sales tax under section 3(1)(a) arose only if the petitioners were dealers, and section 2(d) defined a dealer as a person carrying on the business of buying or selling goods. The sale of produce grown by oneself does not, by itself, establish the carrying on of a business of selling. The conversion of latex into rubber sheets was only the minimum process required to make the produce marketable, and the exclusion of rubber from the definition of agricultural or horticultural produce did not alter the statutory requirement that the person must be engaged in the business of selling. The proviso to the turnover definition also showed that the statute contemplated a distinction between an agriculturist and a dealer, and that the proceeds of sale of one's own agricultural produce could be excluded from turnover as a dealer. On the facts, mere sale of rubber sheets produced from latex collected from rubber trees grown by the petitioners was not enough to constitute dealer status, though a different conclusion could arise if there was additional buying or dealing in latex or rubber sheets from others, which would depend on facts for the taxing authorities.

Conclusion: The petitioners were not shown to be dealers merely because they sold rubber sheets made from latex obtained from trees grown by them; the impugned notices could not be sustained and were quashed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, and the provisional assessment and demand notices were set aside, leaving other objections open at the stage of final assessment.

Ratio Decidendi: A person who sells the produce of trees grown by him, after only such processing as is necessary to make it marketable, does not become a dealer unless the activity amounts to carrying on the business of selling.

---