TMI Blog1969 (2) TMI 127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent in the present case has not been found to have done anything towards the production of the trees and even the cutting has been done by the contractor. The respondent therefore cannot possibly be regarded as a person who sells goods produced by him by agriculture, horticulture or otherwise. - C.A. 1058 OF 1967 - - - Dated:- 12-2-1969 - SHAH J.C., RAMASWAMI V. AND GROVER A.N. JJ. M.R. Krishna Pillai, for the appellant. None for the respondent. -------------------------------------------------- The judgment of the Court was delivered by GROVER, J.- This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Kerala High Court dismissing in limine a revision petition directed against the order of the Sal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax in respect of sales of his timber under the said Act. As mentioned before, the High Court rejected the petition for revision at the preliminary hearing. The sole question is whether on the findings given by the Appellate Tribunal the respondent can be regarded as a dealer within the definition given in section 2(viii). According to that definition dealer means any person who carries on the business of buying, selling, supplying or distributing goods directly or otherwise whether for cash or for deferred payment or for commission, remuneration or other valuable consideration and includes (e) a person who sells goods produced by him by manufacture, agriculture, horticulture or otherwise. It has been contended before us by le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ionary). According to Webster's International English Dictionary the verb produce means to bring forward, beget etc. The juxtaposition of the word manufacture with agriculture and horticulture is significant and cannot be lost sight of. The intention in employing the word produced obviously was to introduce an element of volition and effort involving the employment of some process for bringing into existence the goods. The respondent in the present case has not been found to have done anything towards the production of the trees and even the cutting has been done by the contractor. The respondent therefore cannot possibly be regarded as a person who sells goods produced by him by agriculture, horticulture or otherwise. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
