K.S.HEGDE, J. - (1.) A common question of law arises for decision in these appeals by special leave and that question is whether the High Court acted illegally in declining to call upon the Rajasthan Board of Revenue to state a case and refer the same to it under S. 15 of the Rajasthan ST Act, 1954 (Act XXIX of 1954) (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act). The appellants assesses required the Board of Revenue to refer to the High Court under S. 15(I) of the Act as many as four questions but the Board declined to refer those questions to the High Court. Thereupon the assessee moved the High Court to call upon the Board to state a case and refer to High Court the questions of law formulated by it. The High Court rejected that reference summarily observing. "Heard learned counsel for the parties. We agree with the view taken by the Board of Revenue. The decisions in (State of Gujarat-appellant vs. M/s Raipur Manufacturing Co. Ltd.-Respondent) (AIR 1967 SC 1066) (State of Madras-appellant vs. M/s K.C.P. Ltd.,-Respondent) (AIR 1969 SC) are not applicable as the expression 'business' has been defined retrospectively in the Rajasthan ST Act so as to include any transaction in connection with or incidental or ancilliary to the ordinary business of the dealer. The business of the assessee is manufacturing of Cotton yarn with the aid of machinery and the sale of old and discarded machinery is incidental to the business carried on by the trader and is taxable. Rejected summarily."
(2.) THESE appeals are directed against the said order. The appellant is a registered dealer under the Act. The CTO, Kota passed separate assessment orders on 13th Nov, 1964 for the period 1st July, 1960 to 30th June, 1961. In that order in computing the assessee's turnover he took into consideration the price received by the assessee in respect of the sales effected by it of iron and steel defectives, machinery and spare parts etc. The assessee is a dealer in cotton yern and cotton goods. It is not a dealer in iron and steel defectives or machinery or spare parts. Some of the machinery used by it had become antiquated, and some of the parts of its machinery had worn out. In order to modernise his mills, it sold its old machinery and spare parts during the period in question. The question for consideration was whether the sale price of those articles is liable to be included in the 'turnover' of the assessee.
(3.) THE authorities under the Act as well as the High Court have come to the conclusion that the disputed turnover is also liable to be taken into consideration in computing the total assessable turnover of the assessee. The question of law that arose for decision is whether that part of the turnover is liable to be taken into consideration in computing the turnover of the assessee. Prima facie this question is a question of law as contemplated by S. 15(1) of the Act. The Board of Revenue refused to submit that question on the ground that question is covered by a decision of the Division Bench. The High Court as mentioned earlier rejected it on the ground that the turnover in question comes within the definition of "business" in cl. (c) of S. 2 of the Act. The expression "turnover" is defined in S. 2(t). It says : ""turnover" means the aggregate of the amount of sale prices received or receivable by a dealer in respect of the sale supply of goods or in respect of the sale or supply of goods in the carrying out of any contract." (Proviso to that clause is not relevant for our present purpose). "Sale Price" is defined thus in S. 2(p). ""Sale price" means the amount payable to a dealer as consideration for the sale of any goods, less any sum allowed as cash discount according to the practice normally prevailing in the trade, but inclusive of any sum charged for anything done by the dealer in respect of the goods at the time of or before the delivery thereof other than the cost of freight or delivery of the cost of installation in case where such cost is separately charged and the expression 'purchase price' shall be construed accordingly". ;