1989 (8) TMI 315

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....8 to March 31, 1979, for Rs. 1,83,732. No C form was filed. So the turnover was taxable at 10 per cent. In the appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, by order dated April 2, 1982, affirmed the said decision. The appellate decision was rendered ex parte. The appellate authority held that the assessee was a limited company doing business in rubber and had admitted that they were dealers. Though they requested for time for production of C forms, they were never produced which resulted in the assessment made by the Sales Tax Officer at 10 per cent. Before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the revision petitioner-assessee contended that it was not a dealer in rubber under the Central Sales Tax Act,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Tax Act as also after the amendment effected by Act 103 of 1976. It was stated therein that in view of the extended inclusive definition of the word "business" in section 2(aa) of the Act, it would take within its fold a vast number of persons who would not otherwise be dealers in the restricted sense, as stated by the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Raipur Manufacturing Co. Ltd. [1967] 19 STC 1. It was also observed therein that the decision of the Bombay High Court in Girdharilal Jiwanlal v. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax [1957] 8 STC 732, and the decision of the Supreme Court in Konduri Buchirajalingam v. State of Hyderabad [1958] 9 STC 397, indicated or visualised that an agriculturist may also be a dealer even before the amen....