GEORGE P MATHEW Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Along with the application for revision, the assessee, in accordance with the form prescribed, has formulated the following questions of law arising in this case: viz.

(2.) Counsel for the assessee raised two principal contentions before us. First is, that what was sold under Ext. P1 agreement was not goods or any movable property but right to immovable property; and second, that in any event, the assessee cannot be regarded as a 'dealer' liable to be assessed for 'turnover' on the 'sale' of 'goods' within the meaning of these expressions as defined in the General Sales Tax Act. On the first of these questions, counsel referred us to the passage in Benjamin's Sale of Goods, 1974 Edition, at page 81 which is as follows:

(3.) In the third of the decisions, namely Vishudatta Antharjanam's Case (78 ITR. 58) the assessee had received proceeds of the sale of teak trees which had been planted sometime during 1946-47. The assessment years were 1963-64 and 1964-65. The trees were cut and completely removed from the land together with their roots for the purpose of planting the areas with rubber. It was held that the sale of trees affected the capital structure and the sale could not therefore give rise to a revenue receipt. The receipt from the sale of the teak trees was capital in nature. The principle of the decision does not have direct application to the case on hand as we are not concerned with the question whether the proceeds of the sale is a capital receipt or revenue receipt.