Judgment Ramaswami, J. 1. In pursuance of an order of the High Court, this reference is made by the petitioner under 8. 25 (8), Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1917. 2. The questions formulated for the determination of the High Court are : (1) "Whether in the circumstances of the case the assessee was a dealer within the meaning of 8. 2(c), Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1914, (2) whether the assesses was liable to pay sale tax in respect of the quarters ending 31 12 1944 and 31-8-1946, and (3) whether the assessee was liable to pay the penalty." 3. As regards the first question, it was contended by Mr. S. N. Dutt on behalf of the assessee that according to the agreement dated 23-3 1944, the actual work of production of dehydrated meat in the Digha Factory was entrusted to a separate concern. In support of his argument learned counsel referred us to paras. 7 and 9 of the deed of partnership which is printed at p. 23 of the paper-book. But the argument of the learned counsel is not tenable since on a perusal of all the terms of the deed of partnership it would appear that tbe agreement was more in the nature of an administrative arrangement for supervision of the Digha Factory on the basis of a local directorate subject to certain terms about remuneration including commission to the partners concerned. The contract which the assessee executed with the Government cf India for supply of dehydrated meat has not been printed on behalf of the assessee. According to the statement of the case it appears that the contract was signed by Messrs Amin Brothers who continued to be responsible to the Government of India for supply of dehydrated meat in spite of the circumstance that the assessee had entered into a deed of partnership with other parties. Upon these facts it is clear that the assessee was a dealer within the meaning of S. 2 (c), Bihar Sales Tax Act. 4. On the second question, Mr. S. N. Dutt stressed the argument that the assessee was a mere labour contractor and he had not entered into any contract with the Government of India for sale of goods within the meaning of 8. 2 (g), Bihar Sales Tax Act. 4. On the second question, Mr. S. N. Dutt stressed the argument that the assessee was a mere labour contractor and he had not entered into any contract with the Government of India for sale of goods within the meaning of 8. 2 (g), Bihar Sales Tax Act. As I have mentioned, the contract between the assessee and the Government of India has not been printed but the findings of the Board of Revenue are that according to the terms of the contract the plant and machineries were provided by the Government, dressed goat meat was supplied to the assessee by another contractor at a fixed price on certain terms agreed to between the Government of India and that contractcr. It is important to notice that the assessee himself paid for the dressed meat at a price fixed by the Government and that the assessee was entitled to receive payment from the Government of India according to a fixed scale for the dehydrated meat including the cost of containers and packing. The Board of Revenue has found that according to the stipulation of the contract an inclusive price was fixed for process meant to be packed in sealed containers at a prescribed rate. To my mind there in no doubt that there was a transfer of property for valuable consideration and therefore a sale" within the meaning of S. 2 (g) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act. The contention of the assessee on this point fails. 5. It was argued on behalf of the assessee that he was not liable to pay sales tax for the quarters ending 31.12-1944 and 31 3-1945 since s. 4 (2) of the Act enacts that the dealer shall be liable to pay tax "with effect from three months after the commencement of the year immediately following that during which his gross turnover first exceeded Rs. 5000." In this case it was pointed out that the assessee started the business of manufacturing dehydrated meat at Digha Ghat on 17-4-1944. The Bihar Salea Tax Act received assent of the Governor. General on 29-5-1944 and was published in the Bihar Gazette of 16-6-1944, from which date it came into force. 5000." In this case it was pointed out that the assessee started the business of manufacturing dehydrated meat at Digha Ghat on 17-4-1944. The Bihar Salea Tax Act received assent of the Governor. General on 29-5-1944 and was published in the Bihar Gazette of 16-6-1944, from which date it came into force. If was argued that under S. 4 (2) of the Act, the assessee was not liable to pay tax in 1944-45 but that he was liable to pay tax only from April 1945, since the gross turnover exceeded Bs. 5000 in 1944 45 and indeed the business commenced in that year. In my opinion the argument of the learned counsel is untenable for the liability upon the assessee is imposed in this case not under S. 4 (2) but under S. 4 (1) of the Aot which states: "Subject to the provisions of Ss. 5 and 6 and with effect from such date as the Provincial Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, appoint, being not earlier than thirty days after the dafe of the said notification, every dealer whose gross turnover during the year immediately preceding the commecement of this Act exceeded Bs. 5000 shall be liable to pay tax under this Act on sales effected after the date so notified." It was, however, contended by the learned counsel that the dealer admittedly commenced the business of dehydrated meat on 17-4 1944 and it cannot be said that his gross turnover in 1943-44 exceeded the sum of us. 50C0 as required by S. 4 (1). In this context definition of the word dealer" in S. 2 (C) is important. In S. 2 (C) "dealer" is defined to mean "any person who Carries on the business of selling or supplying goods in Bihar, whether for commission, remuneration or otherwise . . . . " It is the admitted case that the assessee was carrying on business in Bihar from before and that he had been registered for the year 1943-44 under the Bihar Sales Tax for tbe business he had been carrying on in Ranchi Learned counsel argued that the business which the assessee had carried on in 1943 44 should be the identical business of dehydrated meat in order that the provisions of S. 4 (1) may operate. But there is no warrant for construing the word dealer in any such manner. But there is no warrant for construing the word dealer in any such manner. For the definition of the word "dealer" in 8. 2 (c) is wide and unqualified"any person who carries on the business of selling and supplying goods in Bihar ....". For 3. 4 (1) to operate it is not necessary that the business which the assessee carried on in 1913-44 should be the same business of dehydrated meat which he started in Digha Ghat in 1944 45. In my opinion the assessee was liable under S. 4 (1) read with 8. 3 (c) to pay sales tax in respect of the two quarters in question. 6 On the question of penalty, one Case of the assessee stands on a better footing. It was pointed out by the learned counsel that there was a long correspondence between the Government of India and the Bihar Government as regards the liability to sales tax of dehydrated meat. From letter no. 13, printed at page 27 of the paper book, it appears that the Government of India requested the Bihar Government that the entire output of the factory should be exempted from the sales tax on the ground that the factory was a Central Government property and was produeing dehydrated meat exclusively for the defence service. The correspondence was continued for some time but on 24-10-1945 the Government of India intimated to the assessee that Bihar Government had expressed their inability to exempt sales to the Food Department from Bihar Sales Tax Act After this intimation was received the assessee applied to get himself registered to the Sales Tax authorities. It was urged by the learned counsel that the assessee bona fide believed that the sale of the dehydrated meat being made to the department of the Government was not liable to be charged with sales tax. After he was informed of the decision of the Government of Bihar he promptly applied for registration to the appropriate authorities. Learned counsel also referred to a letter dated 22-12-1944, addressed by the Sales Tax Officer to the assessee, to the effect that meat was exempt from sales tax and the business need not be registered under the Bihar Sales Tax Act (vide Annexure A, printed at p. 5 of the paper book). Learned counsel also referred to a letter dated 22-12-1944, addressed by the Sales Tax Officer to the assessee, to the effect that meat was exempt from sales tax and the business need not be registered under the Bihar Sales Tax Act (vide Annexure A, printed at p. 5 of the paper book). Upon these facts it is clear that there was no wilful default committed by the assessee within the meaning of S. 10 (5) of the Act and the penalty imposed by the Sales Tax authorities ought not to have been levied I would therefore answer this question in favour of the assessee. 7. Since the assessee has failed as regards the other two questions I hold that he should pay costs of this reference. Hearing fee Es. 250. Sarjoo Prosad, J. 8 I agree. The reference should be answered in the manner indicated and for the reasons stated by my learned brother.