Trust's religious publications not subject to sales tax; profit motive relevant only if carrying on trade or business

SC held the trust was not a dealer for purposes of sales tax on publications promoting a religious message. The Court ruled profit motive is relevant only if the entity carries on trade, commerce or a similar occupation; on the facts the trust's primary object was propagation of the religious message, not carrying on business. The HC's decision in favour of the respondent-assessee was upheld, and the turnover of such publications could not be assessed to sales tax.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the trust, Sai Publication Fund, can be considered a "dealer" under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.
2. Whether the trust's activities of selling publications constitute "business" under the Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the trust, Sai Publication Fund, can be considered a "dealer" under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.

The primary issue for consideration was whether the Sai Publication Fund, a trust set up by devotees of Saibaba of Shirdi for spreading his message, qualifies as a "dealer" under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. The trust publishes books, pamphlets, and other literature containing Saibaba's message and sells them at nominal charges to cover costs. The proceeds from these sales are used solely for the trust's objectives.

The Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax had initially determined that the trust's activities amounted to "business" under section 2(5A) of the Act and that the trust was a "dealer" under section 2(11). This decision was based on an amendment to the definition of "business" which included activities carried out without a profit motive.

However, the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal overturned this decision, concluding that the trust was not a "dealer" as its primary objective was to spread Saibaba's message, not to engage in business. The High Court upheld this view, and the Supreme Court was tasked with reviewing this decision.

2. Whether the trust's activities of selling publications constitute "business" under the Act.

The Supreme Court examined the definitions of "business" and "dealer" under the Act. Section 2(5A) defines "business" broadly, including any trade, commerce, or manufacture, regardless of profit motive. Section 2(11) defines a "dealer" as a person engaged in the business of buying or selling goods.

The Court noted that not every person selling goods is a "dealer"; the person must be engaged in the business of buying and selling goods. The trust's main activity was spreading Saibaba's message, and the sale of publications was incidental to this primary objective. The publications were sold at cost price, and the trust was not established with the intention of carrying on a business of selling goods.

The Court referenced several precedents, including the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Board of Trustees of the Port of Madras, which emphasized that if the main activity is not business, incidental or ancillary activities do not constitute business unless there is an independent intention to carry on business.

The Court concluded that the trust's activities did not amount to "business" as defined under the Act. The primary and dominant activity of the trust was to spread Saibaba's message, and the sale of publications was merely incidental to this objective. Therefore, the trust could not be considered a "dealer" under section 2(11) of the Act.

Separate Judgments:

Civil Appeal No. 9445 of 1996:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision that the trust was not a "dealer" and its activities did not constitute "business" under the Act.

Civil Appeal No. 1716 of 1999:
This appeal was also dismissed as it relied on the judgment in Civil Appeal No. 9445 of 1996. The facts and circumstances of both cases were similar, and the dismissal of the earlier appeal necessitated the dismissal of this one as well.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision that the Sai Publication Fund is not a "dealer" under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, and its activities of selling publications do not constitute "business." The appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.

---