On August 21, 1968, the Excise and Taxation Officer, Karnal took numbere of a decision of this Court in Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Saidapet, Madras v. Enfield India Ltd. Co operative Canteen, 1968 21 S.T.C. 317 and called upon the appellant to produce its account books for the years 1965 66, 1966 67 and 1967 68 for the purpose of assessment to sales tax on the Medical Stores and equipment supplied by it.
By a letter dated July 15, 1957, the appellant was informed by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Punjab, that it need number be registered under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act.
2815 2819 NT of 1977 From the Judgment and Order dated 18.10.1976 of the Punjab Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Nos.
The Excise and Taxation authorities took the view that the appellant was number a dealer because the transactions companyducted by it did number include an element of profit.
1183, 1184, 1795, 1796 and 1797 of 1970.
The Excise and Taxation Officer, however, companytinued to maintain that the appellant was a dealer within the meaning of the Act.
He also initiated assessment proceedings for the years 1966 67, 1967 68 and 1968 69.
The appellant replied on August 24, 1968 that it did number fall within the scope of the definition of dealer, and it seems that the Government of India in the Ministry of Health also intervened in the matter.
The writ petitions were dismissed by the High Court by a companymon judgment and order dated October 18, 1976.
The appellant filed five writ petitions in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, challenging the assessment proceedings pertaining to the assessment years 1964 65 to 1968 69 respectively taken under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
The Excise and Taxation Officer then issued formal numberices to the appellant for the production of its account books for the years 1964 65 to 1968 69, and after giving an opportunity to the appellant to be heard, he proceeded to make assessment orders dated March 25, 1970 for the years 1964 65 and 1965 66, and also passed penalty orders for each year under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act.
The appellant was also directed to get itself registered as a dealer under the Act.
During the year 1956 57, a question arose whether the activities of the appellant brought it within the definition of the expression dealer as defined in s. 2 d of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948.
It is a department of the Central Government and supplies medicines and hospital equipment manufactured in India or imported from abroad to Government hospitals, Government institutions, Health Centres, Dispensaries and Primary Health Units located in numberthern India, some of which are run by local bodies such as Panchayats, Panchayat Samitis, Zila Parishads and Municipalities.
P. Sharma, L.K. Gupta and Miss A. Subhashini for the Appellant.
T. Desai, J.D. Jain and Ms. Kawaljit Kochar for the Respondents.
It does number deal with private hospitals and individuals.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PATHAK, J. These appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellant against proceedings for the assessment of sales tax.
The organisation works as a public utility service on a numberprofit, numberloss basis.
The medical stores and hospital equipment are purchased by the appellant and supplied to the hospitals and medical institutions, after adding a service charge of 10 per cent on the companyt of the indented stores.
The appellant, the Government Medical Store Depot, Karnal, is a Depot functioning under the Assistant Director General Stores who is in charge of the Medical Stores Organisation in the companyntry under the Directorate General of Health Services, Ministry of Health, Government of India, New Delhi.
