This is a revision against the order of the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Ajmer City, ward B Ajmer, dated 4-9-64.

The brief facts of the case are that the assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Ajmer city ward B, Ajmer vide his impugned order has held that the petitioner deals in books, exercise books, and stationery. The sale during the year 1957-58 is of Rs. 3698-70 Np. and in 1958-59 is of Rs. 5110.58 Np. The petitioner has been doing this business from 1957-58 but his liability for registration certificate came in 1958-59. The assessing authority has therefore held that the petitioner is dealer and should obtain registration certificate from 1958-59.

Aggrieved by this decision of the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Ajmer, city ward B, Ajmer dated 4-9 64 the petitioner has come up in revision before the Board of Revenue.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is not dealer and not liable to obtain registration certificate because the activities of the petitioner are not commercial. He has argued that the petitioner is an educational institution and imparts education to the students where certain such books have been prescribed which are not readily available in the market. So the text-books and exercise books and stationery are supplied only to the students of the School and not to the outsiders. He has cited., S. T. C. 1964 page 505 (Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd., Versus Sales Tax Officer Special Investigation Branch, Kanpur and another, in which the Allahabad High Court has held that the Aligarh Muslim University maintained dining halls wherein it serves food and refreshments to its students. It was held that the same is not liable to sales-tax on the fees charged by it from students for covering expenditure over dining halls. He has argued that the stationery supplied to the students is either tax free or is sales tax paid purchased from the local registered dealers.

He has also cited S.T.C. 1964 page 825 (Evangelical Literature Service versus Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Board of Revenue, Madras) in which the Madras High Court has held that the Evangelical Literature Services a society registered under Act 21 of 1860, is not a dealer-within the meaning of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, and is not liable to sale tax on the turnover of sales which is merely to print, publish and distribute christian literature is not commercial in character and the object does not become commercial because it is to be achieved by the normal business means. He has argued that in selling the stationery to the students by the petitioner, his activities do not become commercial because it simply facilitates the imparting of education to the students of the institution.

He has also cited S.T.C. 1955 page 687 (Mohanlal Hargovinddas versus State of Madhya Pradesh) in which their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that unless and until a person is liable to pay tax he need not get himself registered as a dealer. He has argued that the assessing authority has assessed the petitioner for six years from 1958-59 to 1963-64 but he was not found liable to tax because the stationery articles were purchased from the registered local dealers or the articles were tax-free.

The assessing authority Shri R. N. Baijal was also present who conceded that the petitioner does not fall within the definition of the dealer and the petitioner is not liable to tax. The Government Advocate has nothing to say in the matter. I have heard both the counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record. The definition of the word-dealer as given in section 2 (f) of the Rajas-than Sales Tax Act reads as follows:—

Dealer" means any person who carries on the business of buying or selling supplying or distributing goods directly or otherwise, whether for "cash or for deferred payment or for commission, remuneration or other valuable consideration."

The main ingredient of the definition of the word "dealer" is "carrying on t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document