The Board of Trustees of the Visakhapatnam Port Trust, being a statutory body with specific functions and powers, and not carrying on any commercial activities with the intention of making a profit, cannot be considered a "dealer" within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, and is therefore not liable to pay sales tax on its various activities.

( 1 ) THE same question arises for determination in each of these matters. The petitioner in each of these writ petitions is the Board of Trustees of the Visakhapatnam Port Trust. The main question which arises for determination in these cases is whether the board of Trustees can be said to be a dealer within the meaning of section 2 (c) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales tax Act, 1957, (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The Sales Tax Authorities have held that the Board of trustees is a dealer and, on that footing, proceeded to assess the Board of Trustees to sales tax for the different assessment years 1969-70 to 1974-75. The Sales-Tax Authorities have assessed and proposed to assess the Board of Trustees to sales-tax in respect of several commdities in which, according to those authorities, the board of Trustees have been dealing from time to time. The commodities on which the salestax has been assessed or proposed to be assessed are as follows: (a) supply of water to visiting vessels; (b) bunkering of visiting vessels with liquid fuels; (c) offering of tender documents for a consideration to prospective contractors; (d) supply of water and issue of stores to accepted contractors; (e) supply of water and issue of stores to its own engineers and staff; and (f) disposal of unserviceable material or suplus material by auction or by inviting tenders. It is the contention of the petitioner in each of these writ petitions that it is not a dealer and that, under the scheme of the Act, since salestax can be assessed only in respect of turnover of a dealer, the proceedings of the Sales Tax authorities should be quashed and set aside. On the other, hand, the contention of the Revenue in the counter-affidavit is that each of these writ petitions should be dismissed in linine. In the common counter-affidavits filed on behalf of the respondent in each of these writ petitions, it is contended that the question whether a transaction amounts to a sale taxable under the Act or not is a question of fact to be decided by the Sales Tax Authorities and cannot be agitated in a writ petition. It is contended by the deponent of the common counter-affidavit, Mr. A. Lokender Reddy, Commercial Tax officer, Company circle, Visakhapatnam, that the assessment for the year 1969-70 was over and that an appeal is pending before the Assistant Commissioner. For the assessment years 1970-71 to 1974-75 only show cause notices were issued. Before issuing the notices, the deponent as well as the commercial Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam, who completed, the assessment for 1969-70, had personally contacted the petitioners several times and requested them to produce their books for verification. The petitioners had neither furnished any information nor given any co-operation for verification of their accounts and therefore the Department had to proceed with such material as they could get including the Administration Report and the Annual accounts published by the petitioners. It is contended by the deponent of the counter-affidavit that the question whether the transactions in a particular case are sales within the meaning of the sales Tax Act, is mixed question of fact and law and that the High Court should not go into the questions of fact particularly when law prescribes a procedure for a scertaining these facts. As regards each of these commodities for which the petitioner is assessed or is proposed to be assessed, the deponent of the counter-affidavit contends that it should be decided upon by the sales tax machinery alone.

( 2 ) MR. Subrahmanyam, on behalf of the petitioner contends that, before the question whether any particular commodity is or is not liable to sales tax can be decided, it must first be found that the proposed assessee is a dealer, because under section 5 of the Act, levy of tax on sales or purchases of goods is only in respect of turnover of a dealer. Section 5 is the charging section and subsection (1) of section 5 provide