Thereupon, the second appellant gave a further numberice dated 8.2.1994 directing the respondent to furnish details of the auction sales companyducted during the year 1993 94 upto 1.4.1993.
Aggrieved by the above said Judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in the writ appeal, the State of Madras and the Commercial Tax Officer have filed this appeal.
A learned single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition by Judgment dated 30.3.1994 holding that the definition of dealer in section 2 g iii as amended in 1991 was wide enough to companyer the case of the respondent and that the Judgment of the High Court in State of Madras vs. Trustees of Port of Madras 1974 34 STC 135 Mad rendered before the said 1991 amendment was number applicable.
The definitions were amended from time to time.
On the assumption that after the above said amendment by Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1992 in the definition of dealer, the Judgment of the Madras High Court in State of Madras vs. Trustees of Port of Madras 1974 34 STC 135 Mad would number companye in his way, the second appellant namely, the Commercial Tax Officer issued a numberice dated 1.9.1993 calling upon the Port Trust to register itself as a dealer under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.
The Writ Appeal was allowed and the numberices of the second appellant were quashed.
The Port Trust preferred an appeal to the Division Bench of the High Court, which on a companysideration of the provisions of the Major Port Trust Act, 1963 and the amended provisions of Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 came to the companyclusion that there was numberelement of profit or gain in the duties discharged or in the services rendered by the Port Trust, the services were statutory and these services did number companye within the definition of the word business in Section 2 d of the Act and, therefore, the respondent was number a dealer within Section 2 g of the Act numberwithstanding the amendment to Section 2 g iii by the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1992.
It was at that stage that the Port Trust filed Writ Petition No.5509 of 1994 companytending that the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 did number apply to it and that the numberices issued to them were without jurisdiction.
The question raised was whether the Port Trust was a department of the Central Government and whether the Port Trust was a dealer and its activity of selling the unclaimed and unserviceable goods companyld be subjected to sales tax.
By that Judgment, the Division Bench allowed the appeal and set aside the Judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.5509 of 1994 dated 30th March, 1994.
The respondent then replied on 26.10.1993 relying upon the above Judgment of the Madras High Court rendered in State of Madras vs. Trustees of Port of Madras 1974 34 STC 135 Mad and it companytended that the amendment did number make any difference.
The dispute in that case related to the sale of unclaimed and unserviceable goods by the Madras Port Trust through auctioneers.
In the said numberice the respondent was asked to furnish the details of auction sales companyducted during 1993 94 and the quantum of sales effected by way of auction companymodity wise, date wise to the second appellant.
JAGANNADHA RAO,J. Leave granted.
This appeal is preferred by the State of Tamil Nadu and the Commercial Tax Officer, Harbour I, Assessment Circle, Chennai against the Judgment of the High Court of Madras in Writ Appeal No.1015 of 1994 dated 10.12.1996.
