TMI Blog1996 (8) TMI 503X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly selling rubber, as grown by them, they cannot be considered to be the dealers and at any rate their activities as agriculturists in producing rubber cannot be considered to be a business activity. If the matter was open to fresh consideration, probably we would have approached the matter in greater detail. But the subject-matter is fully covered by a Division Bench decision of this Court in M. Nagamony Sastha v. State of Tamil Nadu represented by Secretary to Government (Order dated July 13, 1992 in W.A. No. 836 of 1992). The said appeal was preferred by the writ petitioners against the order of the learned single Judge dismissing W.P. No. 4329 of 1992. In that writ petition, the petitioner had sought for issue of a writ of mandamus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on reported in [1965] 16 STC 760 (Mad.); [1965] 2 MLJ 493 (State of Madras v. Tiruchengode Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd.). The claim of the petitioner, in my view, cannot be countenanced. Dealers include even a casual trader and a casual trader is defined as a person who has, whether as principal, agent or in any other capacity, occasional transactions of a business nature involving the buying, selling, supply or distribution of goods in the State, whether for cash, or for deferred payment, or for commission, remuneration or other valuable consideration. The fact that the transactions of the petitioner, viz., the sales of the natural rubber latex and raw rubber of all varieties are liable to sales tax though at the purchase point is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed." 2.. In the appeal, the Division Bench agreed with the view expressed by the learned single Judge and held as follows: "We agree with the learned Judge that the appellant cannot be permitted to object to the notice calling upon him to register himself as a dealer under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. There is no dispute that sales of rubber would be liable to tax at purchase point. As per the definition of 'dealer' in section 2(g) of the said Act, even a person carrying on business of selling goods as a casual trader will be a dealer and 'a casual trader' as per section 2(e) is one, who has occasional transactions of business nature involving selling of goods in the State. It would therefore follow that eve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t being so, it is not possible to hold that the petitioners are not liable to register themselves as "dealers", unless it is proved that their transactions are such as are liable to sales tax. We are of the view that the relief sought for by the petitioners to restrain;the respondents from calling upon them to register themselves as "dealers" under the provisions of the Act cannot at all be granted. Such a relief will deprive the statutory authorities from exercising their power under the Act and will enable the petitioners to cover up many transactions. The court should not become a party to such a situation. Hence, we agree with the view expressed in the aforesaid decision by a Division Bench of this Court and hold that the petitioners ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the burden of proving that the assessee was carrying on the business of selling or supplying was upon the sales tax authorities and if they made no investigation and have come to the conclusion merely because of the frequency and the volume of the sales, the inference cannot be sustained. The only fact proved in that case was that the assessee converted the latex tapped from its rubber trees into sheets-a process essential for the transport and marketing of the produce concerned-and that the assessee sold those sheets, but no other facts were found and no effort was made by the authorities to find out the intention with which the assessee was formed, the selling organisation it had set up and other relevant facts. It was therefore held by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xable under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The producer of crops might also engage in the business of supplying and selling and might become a dealer. Therefore, the burden of proving that the assessee was carrying on the business of selling or supplying would be upon the sales tax authorities. Hence, we find it difficult to apply the ratio of the aforesaid decisions at the stage of calling upon the petitioners to register themselves as "dealers" under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. As already pointed out even if the petitioners are registered as dealers, the burden of proving that the petitioners carried on the business of selling or supplying the rubber will be upon the sales tax authorities. Therefore, this aspect of the ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
