TMI Blog1959 (7) TMI 52X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plications was whether the applicant was a "dealer". The authorities below had held that he was a dealer. He produced foodgrains, gur, ground-nut, til, cotton, kardi, onion, wheat, tobacco, rajjira and fruits from his own lands and he sold all this produce at two offices, one at Kopargaon and the other at Shrirampur in the District of Ahmednagar. 2.. We referred to the definition of "dealer" in both the Ordinance and the Act mentioned above, and it appeared to us that the applicant was not within the scope of the exception to the said definition, as he was not an agriculturist " who sells exclusively agricultural produce grown on land cultivated by him personally". He cultivated his land personally and grew thereon different kinds of agri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt of Bombay under the Indian Income-tax Act (Income-tax Reference No. 14 of 1956) decided on 3rd August, 1956, where the assessee was a cultivator who grew sugar-cane in his field. We did not think that this decision offered any guidance in the decision of this case. The expression "agricultural income" has not been defined in the Bombay Sales Tax Act and a decision relating to such income did not appear to us to be relevant to the present case. In our opinion, the decision of the authorities below that the applicant was a dealer was correct, and this being the only question on which arguments were addressed to us by Mr. Bhagwat, these applications were dismissed. 4.. The applicant has proposed the following questions for reference to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s at the hearing. We think that the said question should be referred to the High Court for decision. We direct accordingly. J.P. Pandit, for the assessee. M.J. Mistree, for the State. JUDGMENT SHAH, J.-The assessee is carrying on agricultural operations on a very large scale. In his field he produces sugar-cane, ground-nut, til, cotton, kardi, onion, wheat, tobacco and fruits. He sells the produce at the two offices maintained by him one at Kopargaon and the other at Shrirampur in the district of Ahmednagar. As the sugar-cane cannot after cutting be kept without deterioration for a long time, he extracts juice and prepares gur out of it and sells it at his office. The question which arose before the Sales Tax Authorities was whether ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... form in which it is grown, we will be justified in holding that an agriculturist who is exclusively selling agricultural produce grown on the land either in the form in which it is grown or in the form in which it is converted for the purpose of transportation or preventing deterioration is within the exception provided by section 2(6). In the present case, with a view to prevent deterioration and for the purpose of facilitating transportation the assessee converted the sugar-cane grown by him into gur and sold it. In our view, the taxing authorities and the Sales Tax Tribunal were in error in holding that the assessee is a dealer within the meaning of the definition in section 2(6). The Tribunal has submitted the following question for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
