STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. SURAT PANJARAPOLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference under section 34 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, and under section 61 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, raises two questions as under : (1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the opponent is a dealer within the meaning of section 2 (11) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, and if so, whether it is not liable for registration under section 22 of the said Act ? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the sales by the opponent of carcasses of animals, meaning cotton, milk and dung as fertilizer are liable to tax under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 ?

(2.) THE short facts which have given rise to these two questions are as under : THE opponent, namely, Shri Surat Panjarapole is a public charitable institution which was founded in or about 1796 A. D. with the object of keeping and preserving the lives of stray dogs, stray cattle and other stray animals. In 1950, the trustees had entered into an agreement with the Government of Bombay for breeding pedigree cattle. Even after the scheme was abandoned by the Government of Bombay, the opponent continued to maintain the pedigree cattle farm. THE Panjarapole had applied for registration under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, and a registration certificate was issued to it and from the year 1953 till 1959 it was assessed as such. After the Act of 1959 it applied for registration under the latter Act and a registration certificate was issued to it. THE opponent had agricultural lands which it cultivated personally through its servants. Cotton grown on these lands had been sold. THE opponent gave contracts for removal of carcasses of animals dying in the institution at billed price. THE institution also sold unginned cotton grown on the land, milk from the pedigree cattle and the dung for use as fertilizer. THE opponent had given two applications under the two Acts-under section 27 of the Act of 1953 and under section 52 of the Act of 1959 - for determining the relevant questions as to its being a dealer and as to its liability to pay sales tax on these items. In both these applications the learned Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax by the order, dated 26th March, 1963, held that the opponent was a dealer and was liable for registration as and when the turnover exceeded the prescribed limit and it was estopped after registration from denying that it was a dealer. It was further held that it was liable to pay tax on these various items. In the two appeals against the said two orders the Tribunal held that the opponent was not a dealer and it was not liable for registration subject to the reservation it had made that its order would not apply to transactions made prior to the date of the judgment. THE Tribunal further held that the sales of these items could not be taxed under the two Acts subject to the same reservation. THE Tribunal has thereafter made the reference stating the aforesaid two questions under both the Acts in identical terms.

(3.) IN the result the answer to the questions referred to us are as under :- As regards question (1) our answer to the first part is in the negative, i. e. , the opponent-institution is not a dealer. The second part of the first question, therefore, does not arise for our consideration.