DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX Vs. PALAMPADAM PLANTATIONS LTD
LAWS(SC)-1969-2-46
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: KERALA)
Decided on February 12,1969

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX Appellant
VERSUS
PALAMPADAM PLANTATIONS LIMITED,KOTTAYAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Grover, J. - (1.) 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 Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal dated April 15, 1966 by which it was held that the respondent company was not a "dealer" within the meaning of Sec. 2 (viii) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (Act 15 of 1963) hereinafter called the "Act."
(2.) The respondent sold trees of spontaneous growth in its estate for Rs. 50,000 during the assessment year 1963-64. The assessing authority levied sales tax by treating the aforesaid amount as taxable turnover under the Act. In appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed that order. Before the Appellate Tribunal it was common ground that the trees said were of spontaneous growth. The Tribunal did not accede to the contention of the State representative that under the contr by the process of uprooting the trees, the respondent produced timber and would be covered by the definition of a "dealer" contained in Section 2 (viii) of the Act. It was held that uprooting of the trees was not being done by the respondent and no process had been employed by which it could be said that timber had been produced by it. The appellant herein filed a petition before the High Court raising the following questions of law: (1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, a person owning and maintaining private forest and selling trees of spontaneous growth therein, is a 'dealer' within the meaning of Section 2 (viii) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act 1963 (2) Whether such a person is liable to the levy of sales-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.
(3.) 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 ant person who carried 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.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.