Vajhala Venkata Ramana vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh And Anr. on 18 April, 1972
21. Our attention, however, was drawn to A.M. Ansari v. Board of Revenue (1969) 2 An. W. R. 171. It was contended that a Bench of this Court has taken the view that the Government in auctioning forest timber cannot be said to have been carrying on business within the meaning of that term. We were taken through the judgment. After going through the judgment very carefully we do not think that their Lordships have anywhere decided expressly or by necessary implication that the Government in. selling timber frequently, regularly and continuously cannot be said to have been doing business within the meaning of that term for the purposes of the Act. Their Lordships had posed one question alone for consideration, which we have extracted above. No doubt immediately before the said question was posed it is observed that the second question is whether sales tax is leviable on transactions entered into between the contractor and the Government either in respect of sale of beedi leaves, bamboo or standing timber. It is also true that the learned Judges then considered the definitions of "dealer" and "business", but the judgment did not turn upon these definitions, as is clear from the question, which after referring to these definitions, was immediately posed for consideration. We have already stated that the answer given to this question necessarily implies that the question was answered in the affirmative. We are not, therefore, prepared to hold that the said decision in any manner says that in spite of regularity, continuity and frequency of the sale of timber by the forest department and in spite of large volume of such transactions the Government cannot be said to have been carrying on business in selling timber. The said decision is, therefore, no authority for the proposition that in spite of the features referred to above, the Government cannot be said to have been carrying on business in selling timber. It is perhaps quite relevant to mention that although the definition of "dealer" has been referred to in the said judgment, attention was not directly focussed on the fact that the State Government according to Section 2(e)(i) has been included within the definition of "dealer" provided of course that it carries on the business of selling goods. That is why this particular aspect was not considered in the said decision.