Judgment KAPUR, ( 1 ) THESE appeals by special leave against the and order of the Bombay High court have been brow assessee and relate to sales tax assessments. The respire State of Bombay, now the State of Maharashtra. The app assessee-is a private limited company incorporated under Companies Act and at material times its registered office wasas assessed by the Sales Tax Officer, Bombay, to sales tax for the ids October 1, 1946 4/06/1947. to March 31 and April 1, 19 4/10/1952, on certain transactions which delivery of goods was made by the clearing agents of the see to parties in that State. Penalties were also imposed as the issue had not registered itself in Bombay. An appeal was taken to assistant Collector of Sales Tax who allowed the appeal in regard the first period but dismissed it in regard to the next two. An action for revision was unsuccessfully taken to the Collector of i Tax and finally the Sales Tax tribunal also dismissed the revision. factions made to it. The case was stated by the Bombay Sales tribunal to the High court on the following two questions of law:- (I) Whether the petitioner is a dealer within the meaning of to 2 (c) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, and (2) Whether Ss. (5) of section ii or section 11a of the Act the proper provision to be applied in this case. TO both the questions the answer was against the appellant and come in appeal to this court by special leave. ( 2 ) THE appellant contended that it was carrying on the business of rating and selling bicycles at Mahal, Nagpur. During the relevant UK, June i, 1947- to 31/10/1952, the appellant had a clearing pit Bombay and its case was that the clearing agent, after clearing IMS imported, delivered them to the customers of the appellant 1 State of Bombay including the city of Bombay or despatched to other persons residing outside to State of Bombay according instructions of the appellant. The Board of Revenue of the Madhya Pradesh had held that in that State the appellant was be to sales tax on goods which were delivered directly to the hers in Bombay as they were sales in Bombay and that those I to be excluded from the turnover of the appellant in Madhya The respondents case therefore was that those sales had d to be not taxable in the State of Madhya Pradesh and there- were liable to be taxed within the State of Bombay (now btra ). ( 3 ) NOW the Additional Collector of Sales Tax in his order made on 11955, said :- "in this context, it may be noted that the applicant is registered in Bombay with the Registrar of Companies and he has a clearing werehouse in Bombay at Kalbadevi Road. His warehouse is attended to by the clearing agent of the applicant and all the goods from countries are taken delivery of by his agent and all the transactions are effected with the consent and approval of the companys director 792 Shri D. C. Sutaria, who also admittedly visits Bombay now and l "the Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, had ordered that the deli of. cycles was given to customers directly in Bombay and should b eluded from the turnover of the dealer in that province. For the perform 1-6-47 to 31-3-49- a sum of Rs. 33,644-7-0 and for the period 11-4-49 to 31-10-52, a sum of Rs. 11,54,509-10-0 were allowed by the Tax Authorities. there on the ground that sales were made direct] Bombay, As these sales escaped taxation at Nagpur, information deceived here and after detailed inquiries, the Sales Tax Officer assessed the applicant to tax. " ( 4 ) ON revision the Sales Tax tribunal rejected the plea of appellant that as the contracts of sale, in which the delivery was in Bombay were entered into at Nagpur and that as at Bombay, appellant had only a clearing agent for the purpose of clearing goods,-the appellant did not fall within the definition of the "dealer" and the transactions did not, fall within the word "sale", High court on. the reference made to it by the tribunal treated finding of the Sales Tax Authorities above referred to, as one of and taking that finding it held that the appellant was a dealer section ? (c) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946. the reference made to it by the tribunal treated finding of the Sales Tax Authorities above referred to, as one of and taking that finding it held that the appellant was a dealer section ? (c) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946. ( 5 ) IN this court a great deal of argument was addressed to us on question whether the appellant was carrying on business of selling. supplying goods within the State of Bombay and was therefore section 2 (c)of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946. The appellant] certain English and Lucian cases wherein the meaning words "carrying on. business" was decided but in our opinion it necessary to go into those cases. In the present case the find that the Appellant is a limited company with its registered of Bombay. If has a clearing warehouse in Bombay at Kalbadevi, We may add that it was submitted before us that this war belongs to the clearing agent. All the goods from foreign co received by the appellant company were delivery of at and a11 the transactions of sale etc. were effected with the and approval of the companys director Mr. D. C. Sutaria who admitted before the Additional Collector of Sales Tax, visited every now and then. The appellant had obtained exemption sales tax in the State of Madhya Pradesh expressly on the groan the sales were made directly at Bombay. In these circumstation our opinion, it has been rightly held that the appellant comp dealer within the meaning of section 2 (c) of the Act because on the business of selling or supplying goods in the State of, These appeals are therefore dismissed with costs. One hearing fee. .