JUDGMENT Srinivasan, J.- The State is the petitioner and the Revision is directed against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal holding that the sale of foodstuffs by the Carriage Works Canteen, Southern Railway, Perambur, is not in the course of business, thereby making the Canteen a ‘dealer’ within the meaning of the Madras General Sales Tax Act. On the admitted position that the Carriage Works Canteen of the Southern Railway was under a statutory duty imposed upon it by the Factories Act to provide foodstuffs to its workers on a non-profit basis, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that a business which has no profit motive as its basis cannot be regarded as a business for the purpose of the Sales Tax Act and that a person who carries on such an activity cannot be regarded as a ‘dealer ‘carrying on business. We are unable to agree with the learned Government Pleader that the view of the Tribunal is in any way erroneous. Though the Tribunal does not refer to any other decided case except Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. State of Madras1, on the point, we may refer to a couple of recent decisions rendered by a single Judge of this Court. In I.C.F. Canteen v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer2, Veeraswami, J. held that a ‘business’ for the purpose of the Madras General Sales Tax Act should be understood in a commercial sense with a view to make profit and where such an element is absent, the relevant definition of ‘dealer’ and ‘sale’ would not be satisfied. That was a case where the assessee was also statutorily obliged to run a canteen for the benefit of its workmen on an entirely non-profit basis. The principle of that decision was again followed in Sounderapandian & Brothers v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer3. The assessee in that case was a plantation owner, and was supplying foodgrains to the labourers as an amenity without any profit motive. The facts herein are more or less identical to those in Gannon Dunkerley & Co. v. State of Madras4. Here again the learned Judge (Veeraswami, J.) took the view that the business on non-profit lines took the activity outside the scope of the expression ‘business.‘ imagined purpose which the Legislature intended to enact, but which apparently they failed to enact. The petition is without substance and is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 100. v. State of Madras4. Here again the learned Judge (Veeraswami, J.) took the view that the business on non-profit lines took the activity outside the scope of the expression ‘business.‘ imagined purpose which the Legislature intended to enact, but which apparently they failed to enact. The petition is without substance and is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 100. K.S.-----Petition dismissed.