Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.
1. The State is the appellant. The plaintiff was assessed to sales tax in the sum of Rs. 800-3-9 for the two assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50 in respect of the turnover of the sale of jaggery by him. The plaintiff-respondent is a landlord in Udamalpet. He has been leasing his nanja lands to various tenants on rents for raising sugar-cane crop, the rent being payable in jaggery. The tenants used to supply such jaggery to wholesale merchants at prices fixed according to sample and the merchants used to credit the value of such jaggery to the plaintiff's account in their ledgers and pay over the same to the plaintiff. The assessment was contested in the suit out of which this appeal arises on the ground that the plaintiff is not a 'dealer' and that in any event jaggery must be considered to be agricultural produce and it is exempt from inclusion in the 'turnover' as denned in Section 2 (i) of the Act. On both these questions, a Bench of this Court in Vaidyanatha Aiyar v. State of Madras  5 S.T.C. 94 has taken the view that a person who sells jaggery must be considered to be a 'dealer', and when once jaggery is extracted from sugar-cane it would not be agricultural or horticultural produce within the meaning of Section 2 (i) of the Act. The fact that in the case referred to, the assessee himself grew sugar-cane in his fields and converted the sugarcane into jaggery and in the present case the assessee was leasing the lands to tenants who raised sugar-cane and paid rent in the shape of jaggery and supplied it to merchants who credited the value of jaggery to the account of the plaintiff would not make any difference, since the question is whether the plaintiff is a person who could be considered to be carrying on the business of selling goods. That jaggery is not agricultural produce and from the fact, as found by the learned District Munsif, that the plaintiff has been systematically growing sugar-cane and converting it into jaggery and has been maintaining account books, there can be no difficulty in holding that he has been doing business, the motive being profit or income. That the property is transferred in the course of business is obvious. In any event, applying the decision referred to, the suit has to be dismissed.
2. The result is, the appeal is allowed with costs. No leave.