Educational institution not treated as a dealer where incidental supplies and prospectus sales were only ancillary to education.

An educational institution whose dominant activity was imparting education was not treated as a dealer under the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003. Applying the combined definitions of business, dealer and sale, the Court held that only activities amounting to trade, commerce or manufacture, or independent business activity, attract dealer status; incidental transactions do not suffice. Selling prospectus was merely ancillary to the educational function, and supplying cement, iron and steel to contractors for construction of the institution's own premises was consumption in its own work rather than a separate trading activity. The institution therefore was not carrying on business and was not liable to compulsory registration, with the Court also noting the factual risk of double VAT levy on the materials.

---

---

Issues: Whether an educational institution whose dominant activity is imparting education can be treated as a dealer carrying on business under the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 on account of supplying cement, iron and steel to contractors for construction of its own premises and selling prospectus to students, and consequently be subjected to obligatory registration.

Analysis: The definitions of business, dealer and sale under the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 were read together. The controlling test applied was whether the institution's main and predominant activity amounted to trade, commerce or manufacture, or whether the disputed transactions were only incidental or ancillary to that main activity. The Court held that education is not a business activity in the relevant sense and that incidental transactions do not become business unless the Revenue proves an independent intention to carry on business through them. The sale of prospectus was found to be only a minor and ancillary part of the educational function, and the supply of cement, iron and steel to contractors for the institution's own construction was treated as consumption in its own work, not as a separate business of buying and selling goods. The Revenue failed to establish that these activities converted the institution into a dealer. The Court also accepted the argument that the material had already suffered VAT at the point of purchase and that double levy could not be sustained on the facts found.

Conclusion: The respondent institution was not a dealer, was not carrying on business within the meaning of the Act, and was not liable to compulsory registration under the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003.

---