KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT PLANTERS ASSOCIATION Vs. DEPUTY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER NAGERCOIL RURAL NAGERCOIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order of the Court was made by K. A. SWAMI, C.J. In all these petitions, the only question that arises for consideration is, whether the petitioners, who claim to be the growers of rubber, can be called upon to register themselves as dealers under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). THE contention of the petitioners is that as the petitioners are not doing any business in rubber and they are only selling rubber, as grown by them, they cannot be considered to be the dealers and at any rate their activities as agriculturist in producing rubber cannot be considered to be a business activity. If the matter was open to fresh consideration, probably we would have approached the matter in greater detail. But the subject-matter is fully covered by a Division Bench decision of this Court in M. Nagamony Sastha v. State of Tamil Nadu represented by Secretary to Government (Order dated July 13, 1992 in W.A. No. 836 of 1992). THE said appeal was preferred by the writ petitioners against the order of the learned single Judge dismissing W.P. No. 4329 of 1992. In that writ petition, the petitioner had sought for issue of a writ of mandamus to the State of Tamil Nadu, Commissioner, Commercial Taxes and the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Nagercoil, directing them to forbear from compelling him to register himself as a dealer under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act on the ground that he was not dealing in rubber, but he was producing rubber as an agriculturist and his activities, could, at the most, be described as agricultural activities and not commercial activity. Learned single Judge went into this aspect of the matter in detail and held as follows :

(2.) IN the appeal, the Division Bench agreed with the view expressed by the learned single Judge and held as follows :

(3.) FOR the reasons stated above, we dismiss the writ petitions. However, we make it clear that this shall not be taken to have affected the right of the petitioners to claim that their transactions are not liable to sales tax and the assessing authorities are required to decided such an issue. No costs.