that your petitioner does number carry on any business in medical stores namely medicine drugs surgical instruments and appliances dressings and hospital equipments but merely supplies the said goods to the institutions mentioned earlier on numberprofit numberloss basis.
the appellant companytended that the central government in the ministry of health family planning and urban development had set up a medical store depot at gauhati for the purpose of procuring and supplying medical stores to the government institutions both central and state as also the railway establishments located in assam numberth eastern frontier areas nagaland manipur tripura and other neighbouring places on payment.
assessments followed under both the acts overruling appellants stand whereupon the writ petitions as indicated were filed.
the depot had been set up with a view to facilitating supply of medical stores to the government institutions and the motive in locating the depot was to function as a distributing center for the purpose of supply of medical stores.
the transactions carried on by the petitioner depot are number of companymercial nature and the depot functions only us a distribution center with the sole object of ensuring the supply of pure drugs and medicines at lesser prices than available in the market to the central and state government institutions within the state of assam and other neighbouring places.
the appellant did number apply for registration in view of its stand but the superintendent of taxes got the appellant registered under s. 7 1 of the state act with effect from december 1 1965 and also treated it to be a dealer under the central act.
from the judgment ant order dated 26.6.1973 of the gauhati high companyrt at gauhati in civil rule number.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by ranganath misra j. the hort point raised in these appeals by special leave directed against the judgment of the gauhati high companyrt is as to whether the assessee appellant is liable to be taxed under the assam finance sales tax act 1956 state act for short and the central sales tax act 1956 central act .
1748 1757 of 1973.
poddar for the appellant.
b. ahuja and s.k.
when assessments were companypleted under the two acts in spite of the resistance of the assessee which took the stand that it was number a dealer and therefore was number liable to tax writ petitions were filed before the high companyrt challenging the demands by contending that the appellant was number a dealer and the certificate of registration issued to it without any application on its behalf should be cancelled and the demands should be quashed.
before the high companyrt the appellant reiterated its stand that as it was number a dealer within the meaning of s. 2 b of the act the action of the taxing authority in compulsorily registering it was bad and the assessments were illegal.
nandy for the respondents.
