Rubber growers, who sell rubber grown by them, are required to register as dealers under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, as they are considered casual traders engaged in business activities involving the sale of goods.

K. A. SWAMI, C.J

The order of the Court was made by K. A. SWAMI, C.J. In all these petitions, the only question that arises for consideration is, whether the petitioners, who claim to be the growers of rubber, can be called upon to register themselves as dealers under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The contention of the petitioners is that as the petitioners are not doing any business in rubber and they are only selling rubber, as grown by them, they cannot be considered to be the dealers and at any rate their activities as agriculturist in producing rubber cannot be considered to be a business activity. If the matter was open to fresh consideration, probably we would have approached the matter in greater detail. But the subject-matter is fully covered by a Division Bench decision of this Court in M. Nagamony Sastha v. State of Tamil Nadu represented by Secretary to Government (Order dated July 13, 1992 in W.A. No. 836 of 1992). The said appeal was preferred by the writ petitioners against the order of the learned single Judge dismissing W.P. No. 4329 of 1992. In that writ petition, the petitioner had sought for issue of a writ of mandamus to the State of Tamil Nadu, Commissioner, Commercial Taxes and the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Nagercoil, directing them to forbear from compelling him to register himself as a dealer under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act on the ground that he was not dealing in rubber, but he was producing rubber as an agriculturist and his activities, could, at the most, be described as agricultural activities and not commercial activity. Learned single Judge went into this aspect of the matter in detail and held as follows :

"Heard, Mr. V. Selvaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel stated in unmistakable terms that so far as the liability to tax is concerned, he does not dispute that the transaction of sale of the produce is liable to tax. But at the same time, the learned counsel would dispute the petitioner's liability to get registered as a dealer, even though he is not one such under the law, as it stands. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the sale by the petitioner is taxable at the purchase point and irrespective of the taxability of the sale or otherwise, the issue in question regarding the liability to get himself registered as a dealer has to be decided with reference to the definition of 'dealer' and 'business' under the Act. Argued the learned counsel that the amendment does not have the effect of making every one of the grower whose product is sold and which attracted levy, a dealer himself. Reliance is also placed on the decision reported in 1965 (16) STC 760, 1965 (2) MLJ 493 (Mad.); 1965 (16) STC 760, 1965 (2) MLJ 493 (State of Madras v. Tiruchengode Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd.).The claim of the petitioner, in my view, cannot be countenanced. Dealers include even a casual trader and a casual trader is defined as a person who has, whether as principal, agent or in any other capacity, occasional transactions of a business nature involving the buying, selling, supply or distribution of goods in the State, whether for cash, or for deferred payment, or for commission, remuneration or other valuable consideration. The fact that the transactions of the petitioner, viz., the sales of the natural rubber latex and raw rubber of all varieties are liable to sales tax though at the purchase point is not in dispute. The registration contemplated under the Act is meant to keep track of the assessable transactions and the persons who deal in such transactions to ensure effective levy and collection of tax. The mere fact that a person is registered as a dealer does not render his transaction liable to tax and the question as to whether a person incurs liability to an impost or liable to pay the tax or not in a particular year is wholly immaterial for the purpose of regist