ONKARMAL JODHRAJ AGARWAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant has been registered as a dealer in motor accessories and spare parts, including tyres and tubes, and in motor spirit and lubricants, but not in motor vehicles of any kind. During the period to which the assessment related (13-11-47 to 1-11-48), he sold two used trucks; and their sale price of Rs. 14,380 was included in his turnover by the departmental officers. The reversal of their decision has been claimed on the strength of the Board's decision in Mohanlal Ramkisan Nathani v. The State ([1952] 3 S.T.C. 305).

(2.) THE present case appears to differ from Mohanlal Nathani's only in one respect. The motor vehicles which the assessee sold in this case were used by him in one of the businesses in which he was engaged, namely, the business of providing transport services, whereas in Mohanlal's case they were not used in connection with any of the businesses in which he was engaged. But the business of providing transport service or, for that matter, services of any other kind is not a business for the carrying on of which a dealer has to be registered under our Sales Tax Act, considering that Section 2(c) of the Act restricts the definition of "dealer" to persons carrying on the business of selling or supplying goods. The trucks sold in this case, therefore, had no connection with any business for the carrying on of which the applicant was liable to be registered as a dealer under the Act, apart from the fact that trucks or other motor vehicles have not been mentioned in his registration certificate, and that, during the period to which the assessment relates, he sold no motor vehicles other than the two trucks in question.