JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THE Board of Revenue, M. P. , Gwalior, has referred the following three questions to this Court for its answer under Section 44 of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ): (i) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the sales of the stock of motor spirit which has suffered tax under the M. S. T. Act, 1957 (Act No. 4 of 1958) will be exempt from the levy of tax under the M. P. G. S. T. Act, 1958 on and after 1st August, 1972 (that is, the date from which the M. S. T. Act was repealed) taking support from the provisions of Section 8 (1) of the M. P. Vitta Adhiniyam, 1972 and Section 10 of the M. P. General Clauses Act, 1957 ? (ii) Whether provisions of Section 54 of M. P. G. S. T. Act, 1958 will be applicable for claiming exemption on sales of the stock of motor spirit on and after 1st August, 1972 ? (iii) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that sale of old staff car will not be covered by the term "business" in view of the judgment of the High Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, M. P. v. Project Automobiles [1978] 42 STC 279 (MP) ? ( 2. ) WE have heard counsel for the parties. As regards questions Nos. (i) and (ii), it may be pointed out that these very questions were referred to this Court and came up for answer before a Division Bench in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Chhogalal and Sons [1984] 55 STC 200. They were answered in favour of the assessee and against the department. In view of this decision, questions Nos. (i) and (ii) are answered in favour of the assessee and against the department. ( 3. ) AS regards question No. (iii), the Tribunal has held that sale of old staff car would not be covered by the term "business", and the assessee was not liable to pay tax on that item. The facts in a nutshell necessary for answering question No. (iii) are that the assessee is a dealer in trucks, petrol, diesel, etc. ) AS regards question No. (iii), the Tribunal has held that sale of old staff car would not be covered by the term "business", and the assessee was not liable to pay tax on that item. The facts in a nutshell necessary for answering question No. (iii) are that the assessee is a dealer in trucks, petrol, diesel, etc. The assessee had purchased a staff car which was subsequently sold and it is in this connection that the question as to whether the price for which the staff car was sold could be included in the taxable turnover of the assessee or not, had arisen for consideration. ( 4. ) HAVING heard counsel for the parties, we find it difficult to agree with the view taken by the Tribunal. Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Project Automobiles [1978] 42 STC 279 (MP) was a case where the assessee was carrying on the business of distributor of Ambassador cars and was a registered dealer in automobiles and their accessories. It had purchased an Ambassador car for its office use which was subsequently sold and a similar question arose as to whether the sale price of this Ambassador car could be included in the taxable turnover of the assessee. After dealing with the amended definition of the term "business" contained in Section 2 (bb) of the Act, the question referred to in that case was answered in favour of the department and against the assessee. ( 5. ) IN Commissioner of Sales Tax, M. P. , Indore v. Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd. [1981] 48 STC 45 (MP), the assessee was carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of sugar. It had purchased a truck, a jeep and a car in connection with its aforesaid business which were subsequently sold and a similar question arose as to whether the assessee was liable for sales tax in respect of sale of the truck, jeep and car during the relevant accounting period. Relying on the decision of this Court in the case of Project Automobiles [1978] 42 STC 279, it was held by a Division Bench of this Court that the assessee was liable to pay sales tax on the sale of the said truck, jeep and car. ( 6. Relying on the decision of this Court in the case of Project Automobiles [1978] 42 STC 279, it was held by a Division Bench of this Court that the assessee was liable to pay sales tax on the sale of the said truck, jeep and car. ( 6. ) COMMISSIONER of Sales Tax, M. P. v. Sajjan Mills Ltd. [1985] 59 STC 116 (MP) is another case where a similar question arose for consideration. In that case, the assessee ran a textile mill and was engaged in the manufacture of cloth. A second-hand car had been sold by the assessee and the question arose whether he was liable to pay sales tax. It was held by a Division Bench of this Court again relying on the decision of Project Automobiles [1978] 42 STC 279 (MP) as well as on the decision of Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd. [1981] 48 STC 45 (MP) that the assessee was liable to pay sales tax. ( 7. ) IT was urged by the counsel for the assessee that the case of Project Automobiles [1978] 42 STC 279 (MP) is clearly distinguishable inasmuch as in that case the assessee was carrying on business of Ambassador cars itself. A perusal of the decision in the case of Project Automobiles [1978] 42 STC 279 (MP), however, indicates that this was not the ratio decidendi of the said case. In this connection, it would be relevant to notice that in that case the assessee was not carrying on the business of sale and purchase of old Ambassador cars. The ratio decidendi of that case apparently proceeds on the basis as to whether the old car which was sold, had been purchased for a private use or for use in connection with the business of the assessee. That was the ratio decidendi of the other two cases also, namely, the cases of Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd. [1981] 48 STC 45 (MP) and Sajjan Mills Ltd. [1985] 69 STC 116 (MP ). ( 8. ) IN the instant case also, it is not the case of the assessee that the staff car which had been sold by it, had been purchased for personal use. It was a staff car meant for use of the officers of the assessee in connection with the assessees business. ( 8. ) IN the instant case also, it is not the case of the assessee that the staff car which had been sold by it, had been purchased for personal use. It was a staff car meant for use of the officers of the assessee in connection with the assessees business. In view of the aforesaid decisions, the sale of the said staff car would obviously fall within the amended definition of the term "business". ( 9. ) QUESTION No. (iii) referred to us is, therefore, answered in favour of the department and against the assessee. In view of their divided success, the parties shall bear their own costs.