Skip to content


Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax Vs. Secretary, Quilon Club - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtKerala High Court
Decided On
Case NumberT.R.C. No. 34 of 1964
Judge
Reported in[1965]16STC862(Ker)
AppellantDeputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax
RespondentSecretary, Quilon Club
Appellant AdvocateGovernment Pleader
Respondent Advocate P. Subramoniam Potti and; S.A. Nagendran, Advs.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Cases ReferredMadras and Anr. v. Joint Commercial Tax Officer
Excerpt:
- - we are not satisfied that by virtue of the above provision, the distribution among or the transfer of goods by a club, to its members, have been equated to a sale......by a club, to its members, have been equated to a sale. the explanation to section 2 (g) of the madras general sales tax act is wider. that explanation is in these terms:-- explanation.--a society (including a co-operative society), club or firm or an association which, whether or not in the course of business, buys, sells, supplies or distributes goods from or to its members for cash, or for deferred payment, or for commission, remuneration or other valuable consideration, shall be deemed to be a dealer for the purposes of this act. 2. whatever that be, we are not prepared to say that by virtue of the explanation to section 2 (d) of the general sales tax act, 1125, the transfer or distribution effected by a club to its members constitutes a sale. 3. in the light of the above, we have.....
Judgment:

P. Govindan Nair, J.

1. The decision in this case must be against the revenue if we follow the decision of the Madras High Court in Young Men's Indian Association (Regd.), Madras and Anr. v. Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Harbour Division II, Madras and Anr. [1963] 14 S.T.C. 1030, relied on by the Tribunal. We are in respectful agreement with the reasoning of the Madras High Court and we would have dismissed this tax revision case without further discussion but for the fact that a further point has been raised by counsel on behalf of the revenue. That point is that the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act, 1125, being a pre-Constitutional enactment, it was open to the State Legislature, unfettered as it was by any constitutional inhibition to create artificial personalities and that they had done so. The contention is that by virtue of the explanation to Section 2 (d) of the General Sales Tax Act, 1125, such process has been adopted by the State Legislature. Section 2 (d) reads as follows:--

2 (d) 'dealer' means any person who carries on the business of buying or selling goods, and includes a person who sells goods produced by him by manufacture, agriculture or otherwise.

Explanation.--A co-operative society, a club, a firm or any association which sells goods to its members is a dealer within the meaning of this clause.

We are not satisfied that by virtue of the above provision, the distribution among or the transfer of goods by a club, to its members, have been equated to a sale. The explanation to Section 2 (g) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act is wider. That explanation is in these terms:--

Explanation.--A society (including a co-operative society), club or firm or an association which, whether or not in the course of business, buys, sells, supplies or distributes goods from or to its members for cash, or for deferred payment, or for commission, remuneration or other valuable consideration, shall be deemed to be a dealer for the purposes of this Act.

2. Whatever that be, we are not prepared to say that by virtue of the explanation to Section 2 (d) of the General Sales Tax Act, 1125, the transfer or distribution effected by a club to its members constitutes a sale.

3. In the light of the above, we have come to the conclusion that there is no sale involved in the transactions in question and we dismiss this tax revision case. There will be no order as to costs.


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