CHANDRA REDDY, C.J.

The controversy that is raised in this appeal filed by the State Government against the judgment of our learned brother, Veeraswami, J., relates to the scope and ambit of the notification dated 28th February, 1955. By and under that notification, potatoes among other goods were exempted from the payment of sales tax. The respondent who is a dealer in the potatoes submitted returns for the year 1958-59, disclosing a gross turnover of Rs. 7, 36, 333.20 and claiming a deduction on a turnover of Rs. 7, 21, 454.52 as representing inter-State sales of potatoes. The balance of Rs. 14, 878.68, being the value of packing material, was shown as assessable turnover. The break-up of this figure of Rs. 14, 878.68 was as follows : Rs. 11, 239.87 as the price of gunnies sold prior to 1st October, 1958, and taxable at 2 per cent., and Rs. 3, 638.81, being the cost of the packing material sold subsequent to 1st October, 1958, and taxable at 7 per cent. On checking the accounts, the assessing authority thought that the value of gunnies sold before and after 1st October, 1958, should be computed at Rs. 15, 491.25 and Rs. 4, 851.75 respectively. He, therefore, issued a notice to the respondent to show cause why the assessable turnover should not be determined on that basis. As no objections were filed, the assessment was finalised and the tax payable by the assessee was fixed at Rs. 649.45. It is to remove these proceedings on certiorari that the jurisdiction of this Court was invoked under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Acceding to the proposition advanced on behalf of the respondent, that the assessee in this case was not a dealer in gunnies and that, therefore, his turnover was not amenable to tax, Veeraswami, J., allowed the writ petition. It is this conclusion of the learned Judge that is assailed before us.In support of this appeal, it is urged by Sri V. Ramaswami, learned Additional Government Pleader, that the respondent answered the definition of a "dealer" enshrined in section 2(g) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act even in regard to gunnies and that he could not derive the benefit of the exemption granted by the notification mentioned above.

On the other hand, the point presented by Sri R. S. Venkatachari on behalf of the assessee is that the value of gunnies can be included in the exemption granted by the notification mentioned earlier and that the respondent was not a dealer in respect of the packing materials for the purpose of this Act for the reason that his business was concerned with the sale of potatoes and not gunnies. He seeks to sustain the judgment under appeal by calling in aid some definitions contained in the Central Sales Tax Act and rule 5 of the General Sales Tax Rules and certain decided cases, the latter of which will be referred to in their proper context.

Before we deal with the relative contentions, it is convenient to set out the relevant definitions in the Central Sales Tax Act, which govern this enquiry relating to inter-State sales, and the rules relied on by learned counsel for the respondent.

Section 2(b) defines a "dealer" as meaning any person who carries on the business of selling goods, and includes a Government which carries on such business.

Section 2(h) runs thus :

"'Sale price' means the amount payable to a dealer as consideration for the sale of any goods, less any sum allowed as cash discount according to the practice normally prevailing in the trade, but inclusive of any sum charged for anything done by the dealer in respect of the goods at time of or before the delivery thereof other than the cost of freight or delivery or the cost of installation in cases where such cost is separately charged."Section 2(j) runs thus :

"'turnover' used in relation to any dealer liable to tax under this Act means the aggregate of the sale prices received and receivable by him in respect of sales of any goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce made during any prescribed perio