TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1957 (2) TMI 46
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n Akot tahsil of Akola District. In 440.77 acres of land he had sown and raised crops of cotton, groundnuts and grain. After meeting his personal require ments the balance of the crops were sold by the petitioner, during three periods under assessment, for Rs. 69,442-11-3 (subject-matter of M.P. No. 130 of 1956). for Rs. 29,423-12-6 (subject-matter of M.P. No. 131 of 1956). for Rs. 88,602-1-3 (subject-matter of M.P. No. 132 of 1956). 4.. The petitioner was also carrying on a business as a sole proprietor under the name and style of "Messrs Ramsukhdas Girdharilal" in coal, machinery, cotton, cotton-seed, groundnut and cotton bales. In respect of this business, he was registered as a dealer under the provisions of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, and his Certificate of Registration (No. 682/AKT), dated 22nd October, 1947, has been exhibited in each case. 5.. In the assessment proceedings the Sales Tax Officer, in computing the total turnover of the petitioner, took into account not merely the turnover of the business referred to above, but also the amounts realized by the sale of his agricultural produce, i.e., amounts mentioned in paragraph 3 above. These a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... improvement or repair of immovable property." In clause (c) the word "dealer" has been defined as follows: "'dealer' means any person who, whether as principal or agent, carries on in Madhya Pradesh the business of selling or supplying goods, whether for commission, remuneration or otherwise and includes firm, a partnership, a Hindu undivided family and the Central or a State Government or any of their departments and includes also a society, club or association selling or supplying goods to its members". The explanation to this clause need not detain us here. 10.. There can be no dispute that the produce of the petitioner's fields were goods or that he sold them as such. The question which falls to be decided is whether the petitioner was a "dealer" in respect of these goods. 11.. On a reading of the provisions of the Act it appears to us that the intention of the Act was in all cases to tax the sale or purchase of goods in Madhya Pradesh which are transferred in the course of "the business of selling or supplying goods". This is clear from a reading of the definition of a "dealer" in clause (c) of section 2, and therefore the further question that arises is whether in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 13.. In a recent case decided by a Division Bench of this Court, Civil Reference No. 19 of 1955, decided on 3rd February, 1956, The State of Bombay v. The Ahmedabad Education Society[1956] 7 S.T.C. 497. , the Court was called upon to construe the definition of "dealer" in section 2(c) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, which for the purposes of the matter before us is identical in terms with that contained in clause (c) of section 2 of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947. The judgment of the Court was delivered by the learned Chief Justice who observed: "It is clear from the definition of a dealer that it is not merely the act of selling as defined in the Act which constitutes a person a dealer. The activity which the person must indulge in is not merely the activity of selling in the sense of transferring property in goods, but it must be the activity of carrying on the business of selling or supplying goods. What the Legislature has emphasised is not the act or activity of selling but the act or activity of carrying on the business." We are in respectful agreement with the view of the learned Chief Justice. It will thus be seen that a person does not necessarily fall w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... instant case owns considerable lands which he cultivates and gets agricultural produce from them. He has also a business. The accounts of the two are separately maintained (which fact the Assistant Commissioner admits in his order in Appeal No. 5060/I.A. 6 of 1954) and the income from agriculture can be clearly separated from the income of his other business. There is nothing to show that the petitioner acquired these lands with a view to doing "the business of selling or supplying" agricultural produce. According to him, he is principally an agriculturist who also deals in cotton, coal, oil-seeds and groundnuts. No doubt, he was carrying on agricultural business, but prima facie, that was for the purpose of earning income from his fields. There is nothing in the orders of the Sales Tax Authorities to show that the lands were acquired with the primary intention of doing business of selling or supplying agricultural produce. Unless it is established that a person engages himself in the business of selling or supplying goods, he would not fall within the definition of "dealer" contained in section 2(c) of the Act. We do not say that in a given case the cultivation of land may not be....