Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

16. In this view of the matter, it is unnecessary to consider the decision of the Supreme Court in Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Quilon v. Travancore Rubber and Tea Co. [1967] 20 S.T.C. 620 (S.C.), in which the Supreme Court held that in order to come within the definition of "dealer" a person must carry on business and his activity must consist of a course of dealings.

17. I will now refer to the decision in A. Kannu v. State of Madras [1971] 27 S.T.C. 25, on which strong reliance is placed on behalf of the petitioners, as a case which is directly in point. It is, therefore, necessary to examine this case in detail. An agriculturist filed a writ petition challenging the levy of sales tax on the sale of jaggery manufactured and sold by him out of his own sugarcane. One of the contentions raised was that the explanation to Section 2(r) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, violates the real sense of the definition and that it should be struck down as ultra vires of the powers of the local Legislature. Section 2(r) of the said Act defines "turnover" in the same manner as the Andhra Pradesh Act and the proviso thereto excludes the sale proceeds of agricultural and horticultural produce. Explanation I to the said proviso says that agricultural produce shall not include produce which is subjected to physical, chemical or other processes, but not mere cleaning, grading, sorting or drying. The contention was rejected and it was held that the explanation is merely elucidatory and is perfectly valid. The next contention raised in the said case which is relevant for our discussion is that the agriculturist cannot be said to be carrying on business and that he is not a dealer as he was merely converting his agricultural produce into money and manufactured jaggery with the simple object of making it a marketable produce and not with the idea of doing business. It was held that in spite of the explanation to the definition of "turnover" in Section 2(r) of that Act, the definition of "dealer" as a person engaged in business activity should be satisfied. The said decision has absolutely no applicability to the instant case for the simple reason that the definition of "dealer" in the Madras Act did not contain a provision corresponding to explanation II of the Andhra Pradesh Act which is now in question. I do not, therefore, agree that this decision at all supports the petitioners' contention. The learned counsel for the petitioners also invited my attention to certain cases arising under the Income-tax Act as to what is meant by agricultural income. No useful purpose will be served by referring to these decisions, as the Income-tax Act deals with taxation on income while the taxable event under the Sales Tax Act is a sale and not income.