Judgment :- VENKATARAMAN, J. These four appeals raise the validity of assessment to sales tax under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, of the respondent in these appeals, namely, the Evangelical Literature Service, Madras, for the four year, 1954-55 (1st April, 1954, to 31st March, 1955), 1955-56, 1956-57 and 1957-58. The amount of tax involved is a little over Rs. 2, 000. The facts necessary for the disposal of the appeals may be taken not to be in dispute. The society purchases Bibles and other Christian literature at a discount and sells them at the price marked in the books, thereby earning a profit up to 25 per cent on the whole. But the profit is utilised for the propagation of the objects of the society and dissemination of Christian literature. The turnover was over Rs. 10, 000 in each of the years and hence the assessment was made by the Commercial Tax Officer. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner set aside the assessment. The Board of Revenue set aside the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and restored the assessment. Against the order of the Board of Revenue, the Evangelical Literature Service filed writ petitions under article 226 of the Constitution in this court. It was heard by a learned Judge of this court. He allowed the writ petitions. The State has preferred these appeals against the said order. The reasoning of the learned Judge is in these words : "Under the Sales Tax Act it is not every sale or purchase that will be liable to tax. The tax is attracted only by the turnover of a person carrying on a business of buying or selling or both. A dealer has been defined by section 2(g) as a person : 'who carries on the business of buying, selling, supplying or distributing goods, directly or otherwise, whether for cash, or for deferred payment, or for commission, remuneration or other valuable consideration'.The expressions 'goods', 'sales' and 'turnover' are also defined in the Act. A reading of these definitions will make it plain that, in addition to the activity of buying and selling, to satisfy the definition of a dealer, the transactions should be motivated by a commercial and be of a commercial character. Unless the purpose of the activity is essentially commercial, it is not business. A reading of these definitions will make it plain that, in addition to the activity of buying and selling, to satisfy the definition of a dealer, the transactions should be motivated by a commercial and be of a commercial character. Unless the purpose of the activity is essentially commercial, it is not business. It is in that sense the word 'business' is used in the definition of a dealer. So, a dealer under the Act is one who is engaged in trade or commerce as such of buying and selling of goods. A continuous conduct of buying and selling and/or presence of motive to make profit, though they are important components, will not, by themselves, be decisive on the question. In this case, the main object of the society, as seen from the Memorandum of Association and Rules, is what is contained in article 3(a), namely, printing, publishing and distribution of Christian literature. The name of the society, Evangelical Literature Service, is also not without significance on the nature of the object. It is true article 3(b) which is relied on by the learned Additional Government Pleader states : 'To adopt all normal business means for the accomplishment of the objects outlined in the foregoing paragraph, saving that no monies shall be borrowed whether on mortgage or not.' But it is noteworthy that clause (b) itself expressly indicates the intention of adopting such means only for the accomplishment of the object mentioned in clause (a) of article 3. It the object of the society, as it is, is merely to print, publish and distribute Christian literature and is not, as I think, commercial in character, it is obvious that the object does not become commercial because it is to be achieved by the normal business means. I fail to see any trade or commercial motive in the objects of the society." * There is an authoritative decision of a Bench of this court consisting of Satyanarayana Rao and Rajagopalan, JJ., in Gannon Dunkerley & Co. v. State of Madras on the definition of "dealer". In that case, the assessees, Gannon Dunkerley & Co., were contractors to put up buildings, bridges, etc., and they supplied foodgrains to the workmen for cost price or less. There was absolutely no element of profit. v. State of Madras on the definition of "dealer". In that case, the assessees, Gannon Dunkerley & Co., were contractors to put up buildings, bridges, etc., and they supplied foodgrains to the workmen for cost price or less. There was absolutely no element of profit. The revenue sought to tax the turnover on such sales of foodgrains to the workmen under the provisions of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939. The learned Judges held that buying and selling of grains were not carried on with a view to make any profit and, consequently, the assessees could not be said to be carrying on business. There is an exhaustive discussion and it is enough to reproduce a few passages. They observed thus : "There is no element of profit. It was intended merely as a scheme for the amelioration of the workmen and it was in no sense a business of selling goods within the meaning of the definition. 'Business' in the definition does not include every activity which in popular sense is called business. The word 'business' must be understood in a commercial sense as involving an activity designed to earn profit." * The learned Judges quote what Fry, L.J., had stated in Graham v. Lewis (1889 22 Q.B.D. 1 at 5.], thus : "Now, I think that the expression 'carry on business' is not ordinarily used in the sense of a person being busy or doing business merely. A butler employed to look after his master's plate and perform the other duties of his occupation may be a very busy man, but he could not be said to be carrying on business. A man who busies himself about science, the volunteer movement, or politics, though he may have a great deal of business to transact in respect of those matters, does not carry on business ........." * They then referred to another case, namely, the decision in Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Korean Syndicate Ltd. 1921 (3) KB 258.), where the company made some profit by acquiring some concessions and turning the same to account. Profit element was present and, therefore, it was held to be carrying on business within the meaning of the relevant Finance Act. Profit element was present and, therefore, it was held to be carrying on business within the meaning of the relevant Finance Act. The learned Judges then referred to another case, to which we shall make reference later, namely, Religious Tract and Book Society of Scotland v. Forbes 1896 (3) Tax(case) 415.), and observed that it was a peculiar instance of a case in which one particular transaction was held to be a business and the other was not. It was further observed : "The Religious Tract and Book Society of Scotland, which was founded for the diffusion of religious literature, sold Bibles, etc., at a shop in Edinburgh and also sent out colporteurs, whose duty was to sell Bibles and to act as cottage missionaries. The sales at the Edinburgh shop earned profit but the colportage ended in loss. The combined effect of the two operations was an annual loss, which was made good by subscriptions. It was held that colportage, though it involved an element of sale, was not a trade and that the loss on it could not be set off for purposes of income tax against the profits from the bookseller's business carried on at the shop in Edinburgh." Then they concluded : " From a review of these authorities, it seems to us clear that the word 'business', employed in the definition of 'dealer' in the Madras General Sales Tax Act is used in the sense of buying or selling goods with a view to earn profit. As observed already, in the present case, the supply of foodgrains to the workmen by the assessees is not carried out with a view to earn profit and in fact no profit accrued. We think, therefore, that the objection of the assessees that they are not liable to pay sales tax must be upheld." * This decision decided another point, namely, that in the contract of works undertaken by the assessees, there was no sale of the materials which were used by them in putting up constructions like bridges or buildings and, consequently, they were not liable to assessment under the Madras General Sales Tax Act for the turnover. An appeal was preferred against this decision to the Supreme Court on both the points; but at the time of arguments, the learned Advocate-General appearing for the Madras State did not press the appeal in respect of the foodgrains, but pressed the appeal only in respect of the works contract and even then the decision of this court was confirmed - vide State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley & Co.