ABHYANKAR, J. - This order will dispose of all these references. The Sales Tax Tribunal has referred to the High Court the following question for determination :-

"Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the applicant is a dealer within the meaning of section 2(11) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 ?"

The applicants in these cases are motion picture producers. Applications were made on behalf of these motion picture producers separately under section 52 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, asking for the determination of the question as to whether they were dealers under the said Act and whether they were liable for registration under that Act.

According to the statement of the case, the applicants as motion picture producers do not sell cinematograph pictures which they produce, but they give away the pictures under certain financial arrangements, and a specimen agreement in respect of such arrangements has been placed on record. The ownership in the motion picture, or the him as it is called, is retained by the applicants themselves, including the copyright. The applicants buy raw films in the required quantities for the purpose of producing motion pictures and make purchases as and when required for that purpose. It is not disputed that motion pictures are produced by the applicants with the ultimate object of making profit by exhibition of the pictures produced by them. It seems to have also been admitted that the turnover of the purchases made by the applicants exceeds that the turnover Rs. 30,000 a year.

The Deputy Commissioner who dealt with the application in the first instance found, in view of the nature of the business done by the applicants, that it was not possible to hold that there is any sale of the him by the applicants and that, if there is no sale, there is no business of sale. The next question that was addressed was whether the applicants, in their capacity as film producers, could be said to be carrying on the business of buying goods. The purchase of raw film was not of a casual character. Raw films were purchased regularly so that they could be used in the production of films. On the view that the word "business" bears a liberal connotation as interpreted in judicial decisions and it has been admitted that the applicants carry on the business of producing films, the Deputy Commissioner came to the conclusion that the purchases made by the applicants, i.e., the purchases of raw films, should be held to be purchases made in the course of business.

Against that order, the applicants preferred appeals which were heard by the Sales Tax Tribunal Before the Tribunal, among other decisions, the learned counsel for the applicants relied on a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in H. Abdul Bakshi G Brothers, Hyderabad v. The State of Andhra Pradesh ([1960] 11 S.T.C. 526). At that stage, the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court had not reached the Supreme Court where the decision has (1) ([1960] 11 S.T.C. 526.) been ultimately reversed. Therefore, reliance was placed with equal emphasis on both sides on that decision.

The Sales Tax Tribunal agreed with the finding of the Deputy Commissioner on the question of the applicants carrying on the business of selling goods. In fact, that finding was not challenged on behalf of the department before the Sales Tax Tribunal. It is also mentioned by the Tribunal in its appellate order that actually the appellants do not sell cinematograph films which they produce. It seems to have been contended before the Tribunal also that the applicants, as producers of motion pictures, do not carry on any business which can attract liability under the Sales Tax Act, because they do not sell anything. The Tribunal has observed that this argument assumed that unless the purchase activity ends in sale, there is no business carried on, and, further, that unless they deal in the goods, i.e., they sell the goods which they buy, there is also no business of buying go