http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER: THE STATE OF BOMBAY
Vs.
RESPONDENT: M/S. RATILAL VADILAL AND BROS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/11/1960
BENCH: HIDAYATULLAH, M. BENCH: HIDAYATULLAH, M. KAPUR, J.L. SHAH, J.C.
CITATION: 1961 AIR 1106 1961 SCR (2) 367 CITATOR INFO : D 1962 SC1326 (4) R 1973 SC 804 (11)
ACT: Sales Tax--’Dealer’--Meaning of--Appeal by special leave--When available--Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 (Bom. III of 1953), ss. 27(1), (b), (c), 30(1), 34(1) and (2)--Constitution of India, Art. 136.
HEADNOTE: One Nanalal Karsandas, who was a brick manufacturer, held a priority certificate for purchasing coal under the Colliery Control Order and purchased a certain quantity of coal from M/s. S. G. Rungta Colliery through the respondents who were commission agents. The respondents applied to the Collector for determining whether they could be described as "dealers" under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953. The Collector held that they were dealers but the Sales Tax Tribunal held otherwise. No step was taken thereafter for a reference to the High 368 Court under ss. 34(1) and 30(1) of the Act. On appeal by the State of Bombay by special leave, Held, that the respondents could not be described as "dealers" under the Act as the nature of their business as disclosed by them did not show that they were carrying on the business of selling goods in t...