BRAEMORE ESTATES LTD Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revision petitioner is a public limited company. It is carrying on its business, inter alia, of planting and growing rubber in its estates in Kerala. The respondent is the revenue. We are concerned with the assessment year 1978-79. The Sales Tax Officer, III Circle, Trivandrum, by order dated 31-12-1980 held that the company had effected inter State sale of rubber from 1-6-1978 to 31-3-1979 for Rs. 1,83,732/-. No C form was filed. So the turnover was taxable at 10%. In the appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax, by order dated 2-4-1982 affirmed the said decision. The appellate decision was rendered ex parte. The Appellate Authority held that the assessee was a limited company doing business in rubber and had admitted that they were dealers. Though they requested for time for production of C forms, they were never produced which resulted in the assessment made by the Sales Tax Officer at 10%. Before the Sales tax Appellate Tribunal, the revision petitioner assessee contended that it was not a dealer in rubber under the Central Sales Tax Act, and that the rubber actually sold by it inter State was produced in its estate and so no tax under the Central Sales Tax Act was exigible. The plea raised was that the assessee company was a mere agriculturist in rubber and not a dealer in it. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal referred to the definition of the word 'dealer' in S.2(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, as amended by Act 103 of 1976, and held that the revision petitioner was a dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act. The Appellate Tribunal held that the definition of the word 'dealer' after the amendment would take within its ambit estate owners who sell inter State the rubber produced in their own estates. It was further observed that the assessee company sold rubber inter State and conceded the ' turnover and the quantum. In the absence of C forms, the Appellate Tribunal held that the turnover was rightly subjected to higher rate of tax under S.8(2)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The decision of the authorities below was confirmed. The assessee has come up in revision.

(2.) We heard counsel. The plea that the revision petitioner - assessee is only an agriculturist and not a dealer when it sold rubber inter State was raised before us. We are of the view that the said plea is without substance. A Bench of this Court in T.R.C.No. 124 of 1984 by judgment dated 24-6-1987 had occasion to review the decisions on the subject before the amendment of the definition 'dealer' in the Central Sales Tax Act as also after the amendment effected by Act 103 of 1976. It was stated therein that in view of the extended inclusive definition of the word "business" in S.2(aa) of the Act, it would take within its fold a vast number of persons who would not otherwise be dealers in the restricted sense, as stated by the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Raipur Manufacturing Co. Ltd., 1967 (19) STC 1 . It was also observed therein that the decision of the Bombay High Court in Girdharilal Jiwanlal v. Asst. Commr, of Sales Tax, 8 S.T.C. 732, and the decision of the Supreme Court in Konduri Buchirajalingam v. State of Hyderabad, (1958) 9 S.T.C 397 indicated or visualised that an agriculturist may also be a dealer even before the amendment of the Central Sales Tax Act by Act 103 of 1976.

(3.) We are concerned with the following definitions under the Central Sales Tax Act: