Skip to content


H. Abdul Bakshi and Brothers Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberTax Revision Case No. 88 of 1958
Judge
Reported in[1960]11STC526(AP)
AppellantH. Abdul Bakshi and Brothers
RespondentThe State of Andhra Pradesh
Appellant AdvocateN. Rajeswara and ;M.S.R. Sastry, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateThe Second Government Pleader
DispositionPetition allowed
Excerpt:
- - the appeals carried by the assessee to the deputy commissioner of commercial taxes and the sales tax appellate tribunal proved unsuccessful......being dealers within the purview of section 2(e) of the hyderabad general sales tax act, 1950, the bark purchased by them for use in the process of tanning skins and hides was exigible to tax although the firm might not have been carrying on the business in tanning barks.3. we pause here to read the definition of 'dealer' contained in section 2(e) and rule 5(2) of the said rules, which are the foundations of the action of the department in this behalf.'dealer' means any person, local authority, company, firm, hindu undivided family or any association or associations of persons engaged in the business of buying,. selling or supplying goods in the hyderabad state whether for a commission, remuneration or otherwise and includes a state government which carries on such business and any.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Chandra Reddy, C.J.

1. The petitioners Abdul Bakshi and Brothers, Tanners, Hyderabad, are a firm of merchants carrying on business in skins and hides. During the year 1954-55, they purchased tanning bark of the value of Rs. 61,431-14-9 for use of the process of tanning raw hides and skins. The Department chose to tax this purchase of tanning bark on the ground that it falls within the purview of Rule 5(2) of the Hyderabad General Sales Tax Rules, 1950. The liability to pay purchase tax on this was disputed by the assessee-petitioners on the ground that this rule is inapplicable as they are not dealers in that commodity for purposes of Rule 5(2). This opposition was overruled and the Department imposed a tax on the turnover in dispute. The appeals carried by the assessee to the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal proved unsuccessful. It is to quash the assessment in regard to this turnover that this revision case has been filed.

2. The order of the Tribunal is sought to be sustained by the learned Government Pleader on the ground that the petitioners being dealers within the purview of Section 2(e) of the Hyderabad General Sales Tax Act, 1950, the bark purchased by them for use in the process of tanning skins and hides was exigible to tax although the firm might not have been carrying on the business in tanning barks.

3. We pause here to read the definition of 'dealer' contained in Section 2(e) and Rule 5(2) of the said rules, which are the foundations of the action of the Department in this behalf.

'Dealer' means any person, local authority, company, firm, Hindu undivided family or any association or associations of persons engaged in the business of buying,. selling or supplying goods in the Hyderabad State whether for a commission, remuneration or otherwise and includes a State Government which carries on such business and any society, club or association which buys or sells or supplies goods to its members.

Rule 5(2): In the case of the undermentioned goods the turnover of a dealer for the purpose of these rules shall be the amount for which the goods are bought by the dealer.* * * *

4. It is manifest that emphasis is laid by this rule on the assessee dealing in goods which are enumerated in that rule. It is not enough if he is a dealer in the sense that he carries on some business. For attracting this rule, the assessee must be carrying on business in the particular category of articles specified in that sub-rule. It would be straining the language of the rule to interpret it as applying to any dealer who is doing some business. In our opinion, it is only an assessee doing business in the particular type of goods mentioned therein that would be governed by this rule. The mere purchase of some goods for consumption would not bring it within the ambit of Rule 5. The profit motive must be with regard to the commodities in regard to which the impost is sought to be levied. There can be little doubt that the expression 'business' in the definition of 'dealer' is used in a commercial sense. A person who buys large quantities of any category of goods for the purpose of consumption or for any other purpose unconnected with the business in that commodity, cannot be regarded as a businessman within the mischief of Rule 5.

5. In the circumstances, we reach the conclusion that the tanning bark purchased by the petitioners cannot fall within the scope of Rule 5(2) and the turnover in that regard cannot be subjected to sales tax.

6. In the result, the order levying tax on the purchase of tanning bark is set aside and the revision petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //