JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J.-These are two appeals by special leave against the judgment of the Madras High Court. In Appeal No. 2119/69 the chargeability ito sales tax nder the· Madras General Sales Tax Act 1959 (hereinafter called the 'Act') as amended by Acts of 1961 and 1964 in respect of ( 1) advertisement maoterials ( 2) canteen sales ( 3) sale of scrap and ( 4) penalty have to be considered, while in Appeal No. 2120/1969 only the sales tax levied in respect of sale of scrap and penalty has i:>een challenged. The respondents are oil companies and it appears in the first of the appeals the respondent under the fa.:ll:ories Act had to supply tea and edibles to its workmen for the canteen es1ablished by it. It also supplies to its agents at cost price or less than the cost price advertisement materials such as calendars, purses and key chair:s. Both the respondents also sell as scrap periodically unserviceable oil drums, rubber hoses, jerry cans, rims, unserviceable pipe fittings and old furniture. The amount of turnover in respect of each if the items in the respective appeals is not relevant, but what is relevant is that in both the appeals the year 1964-1965 for which assessment is made on the turnover of sales is divided into two parts (i) 1st April to 31st 1August, 1964 and (ii) 1st September, 1964 to 31st March, 1965, die first prt being governed by the 1959 Act while the second part is chargeable under the Act aer its amendment in 1964 The d.efinition of business, casual trader and dealer before and after the amendment is different and the questi01n is, whether under the amended definition of the said tern1s on and after 1964, Act, attracts sales tax on the above transactions. In the High Court it was contended that the Tribunal was wrong in holding that sales of publicity materials were chargeable to sales tax on the ground that (a) there was no sale M all by the assessee in the true sense and (b) even if there was, it was not as a dealer. The High Court dealt with the latter aspect holding that the object of the respondent is not shown to be to ensrage itself in trade or commerce of publicity rr aterials, and though it may be that the distribution o4' the publicity mateials to the distributors is connected with the business of the assessee that will not be sufficient to make it a trade or an activity in a commercial sense. In this view it held that it was not a dealer nor is it its business carried on as a dealer. The High Court also held that the sale of scrap and canteen sales were not liable to tax following its earlier judgment in Deputy Cnmm•ssioner of Commercial Taxes, Coimbatore Division, Coimbatore v. Sri Thiromagal Mills Limlted(')
