The main legal point established in the judgment is that to be considered a dealer under the Kerala General Sales-tax Act, 1963, a person must carry on the business of buying, selling, supplying, or distributing goods, and the goods sold must be produced by the person by manufacture, agriculture, horticulture, or otherwise in the course of trade or business.

1. The assessee is the same in all the three Tax Revision Cases; the question of law arising for our consideration is also the same. In T. R. C. Nos. 14 and 15 relating to the years 1967-68 and 1968-69 respectively, the assessee challenges a common order of the Kerala Sales-tax Appellate Tribunal. Following the said order, a separate order was passed by the Tribunal in respect of the year 1970-71 and this order is challenged in T.R.C. No. 13 of 1975. We propose to deal with these cases together and dispose of the same by a common judgment

2. The only point arising for our consideration is whether the petitioner-Devaswom is a dealer within the meaning of S.2 (viii) of the Kerala General Sales-tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter called the Act).

3. The Devaswom owned extensive private forests. On the strength of permits issued to it by the District Collector, Kozhikode, the Devaswom felled trees which had grown spontaneously in its forests. These trees were dressed by the Devaswom and sold as timber. The Sales tax Officer initiated assessment proceedings and issued notice under S.17 (3) of the Act, stating as follows:

"On enquiries conducted by me it is understood that you have been conducting a business of selling timber (as the Manager of Sree Pulpally Devaswom) which has been extracted from the forest lands owned by the Devaswom in accordance with the clear-felling permits obtained from the District Collector, Kozhikode, under the M. P, P. F. Act since 1967-68 onwards. The trees from the forest lands owned by the Devaswom had been cut and felled by the Devaswom and they had been dressed and processed into timber logs and obtained properly mark registration in the name of the Devaswom. Then they had been stored in the stock yard set apart for the purpose from where they had been sold in separate and distinct specie-war auctions conducted by you as the Manager of the Devaswom to the highest bidder, and they had been delivered to the purchaser or the purchasers lot by lot on receipt of the price thereof.

The Devaswom will therefore fall in the definition of 'dealer' as defined in the K.G.S.T. Act, 1963 as any person who carries on the business of buying, selling, supplying or distributing goods and all the accepted principles of a business, namely, periodicity, continuity and profit motive are present in the activities carried on by it".

This notice was answered by the Devaswom as follows;

"The Devaswom is not a dealer as defined in the K G S.T. Act and is not therefore liable to be assessed under the Act. The Devaswom owns private forests and the only mode of enjoyment of the private forests is by sales of the trees of spontaneous growth and the trees are cut as per the permission granted by the Collector of the District under the M. P. P. F Act. In the sale of trees of spontaneous growth available from the private forests of the Devaswom, there is no process of manufacture and the Act does not apply to the sale in question. There is neither any process of agriculture or horticulture involved and the Devaswom cannot be held to be a dealer in timber and liable to assessment."

Rejecting this contention, the Sales-tax Officer held that the Devaswom was a dealer and was liable to be assessed under the Act. Appeals filed by the Devaswom before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal were both unsuccessful. Hence the present revision cases.

4. The Tribunal held:

"Since the appellant has sold the timber after cutting and converting standing trees into timber, we have to hold that it has produced the goods sold by it and that hence by the sale of such goods the appellant will come within the meaning of the definition of 'dealer' in the Act. Hence we are of the view that the appellate authority is justified in rejecting the appellant's contention."

It is not contended that, apart from the sale of trees (after felling and dressing the same), the Devaswom had carried on any business. Although the expressions "dressed" and