Judgment B.N.Agrawal, J. 1. The Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Bihar, Patna (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), at the instance of the assessee, has referred the following question of law to this Court for its opinion and submitted statement of case under Sec. 33(3) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959 (Bihar Act 19 of 1959) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the Tribunal that the applicant, a person, who sold regularly every year agricultural produce of considerable value grown by him on his lands was a dealer within the meaning of the expression as defined in Sec. 2(f) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959, is legal and valid ?" 2. The short facts for disposal of this reference are that the assessee is an unregistered dealer and an agriculturist having 150 bighas of agricultural lands. He used to consume the agricultural produce of his land and the surplus thereof he used to sell in market. He has been assessed as an individual under Sec. 16(5) of the Act by the Assistant Superintendent of Commercial Taxes, Bettiah (hereinafter referred to as "the assessing officer") in relation to the surplus agricultural produce of his land sold by the petitioner for the period between 2nd February, 1961 and 31st January, 1966 and a penalty of Rs. 100 has been imposed. Against the order of the assessing officer, an appeal was taken before the Additional Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Muzaffarpur (hereinafter referred to as "the appellate authority") who dismissed the same and affirmed the order of assessment holding that since the assessee was every year found selling surplus agricultural produce of his land, the sale in question cannot be said to be casual ; as such, the assessee became a dealer within the meaning of Sec. 2(f) of the Act and is liable to be assessed under the provision of the Act. On revision being taken by the assessee, the aforesaid orders have been affirmed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (hereinafter referred to as "the revisional authority"). On further revision being taken, the Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Bihar, Patna, has affirmed the aforesaid orders. On revision being taken by the assessee, the aforesaid orders have been affirmed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (hereinafter referred to as "the revisional authority"). On further revision being taken, the Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Bihar, Patna, has affirmed the aforesaid orders. Thereafter, on an application being filed on behalf of the assessee, the Tribunal has referred the aforesaid question of law to this Court for its opinion under Sec. 33(3) of the Act. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee contended that the assessee was and is an agriculturist and is being assessed under the provisions of the Bihar Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1938, in relation to the income derived by him by sale of surplus agricultural produce from his land and sales tax cannot be assessed over the aforesaid sales of the assessee as he cannot be treated to be a dealer within the meaning of Sec. 2(f) of the Act. According to him, these are casual transactions of sale and the assessee is not carrying on any business of sale and purchase of agricultural produce. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue contended that it was not a case of casual sale ; rather the assessee was selling surplus produce of his agricultural land after meeting his personal consumption and each and every year he was making regular sale of his agricultural produce ; as such, he became a dealer within the meaning of Sec. 2(0 of the Act and, consequently, liable to be assessed under the provisions of the Act. 4. 4. Learned counsel for the assessee in support of his contention has placed reliance upon a Bench decision of this Court in Raja Visheshwar V/s. Province of Bihar [1951] 2 STC 129 in which this Court was considering a case under the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1944 Act"), Section 2(c) whereof defines a dealer as follows : "2(c) dealer means any person who carries on the business of selling or supplying goods in Bihar, whether for commission, remuneration or otherwise and includes any firm or a Hindu joint family, and any society, club or association which sells or supplies goods to its members." In that case, it was held that merely because an agriculturist had sold grains or sugarcane, which were agricultural produces and which were in excess of his personal requirements, he could not have been treated to be a dealer within the meaning of Sec. 2(c) of the 1944 Act and was not liable to be assessed under the provisions of the 1944 Act. Thereafter, it appears that the 1944 Act was repealed and the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947, was passed. In Sec. 2(c) whereof, on similar terms, the expression "dealer" was defined. Later on, by the Bihar Finance Act, 1950, amendment was made and the definition of "dealer" mentioned in Sec. 2(c) was amended as follows : " dealer means any person who sells or supplies any goods (including goods sold or supplied in the execution of a contract) whether for commission, remuneration or otherwise and includes any firm or a Hindu joint family, the Government and any society, club or association which sells or supplies goods to its members." After the aforesaid amendment, when the matter was taken to this Court in relation to the case of another agriculturist (sic) whose case was covered by the aforesaid amendment of 1950 and who also used to sell surplus agricultural produce of his land, it was held by this Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax V/s. Basta Colla Colliery Co. Ltd. [1968] 21 STC 454 that the change in the definition of "dealer" did not make any difference in fastening liability upon an assessee. Ltd. [1968] 21 STC 454 that the change in the definition of "dealer" did not make any difference in fastening liability upon an assessee. According to their Lordships, in spite of the fact that the expression "who carries on business" had been deleted from the definition of "dealer", the same did not make any change and, as such, an assessee could not have been assessed under the provisions of the Act even after amendment. In their Lordships view, even after amendment, the decision in the case of Raja Visheshwar [1951] 2 STC 129 (Pat) held the field. The aforesaid two decisions are entirely in favour of the assessee. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue has placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Motipur Zamindary Co. (Private) Ltd. \. State of Bihar [1962] 13 STC 1. This was a case from Bihar dealing with a case which was covered by the provisions of 1947 Act after amendment of the expression "dealer" in the year 1950. In that case also, the assessee was an agriculturist and two questions were raised during the course of assessment proceeding. The first contention was that the assessee being an agriculturist, by sale of the produce of his agricultural land, he cannot be treated to be a dealer within the meaning of the Act. The other contention was that sugarcane being green vegetable, the assessee was entitled to exemption to pay sales tax by virtue of the notification under Sec. 6 of 1947 Act. Both these contentions of the assessee did not find favour with the statutory authority. Thereafter, the matter was taken to this Court on reference and both the questions were answered against the assessee against which appeals were taken to the Supreme Court. At the same time, petitions under Article 42 of the Constitution were also filed challenging the amendment of 1950 in the 1947 Act. The Apex Court dismissed the petitions under Article 42 of the Constitution. So far as the appeals against the judgment of this Court on reference are concerned, the same were also dismissed and it was laid down that the assessee while selling agricultural produce of his land became a dealer within the meaning of the expression "dealer" as defined in Sec. 2(c) of the 1947 Act after its amendment in 1950. So far as the appeals against the judgment of this Court on reference are concerned, the same were also dismissed and it was laid down that the assessee while selling agricultural produce of his land became a dealer within the meaning of the expression "dealer" as defined in Sec. 2(c) of the 1947 Act after its amendment in 1950. It was held that the amended definition of the expression "dealer" was very wide and the assessee definitely became a dealer within the meaning of Sec. 2(c) of the 1947 Act as amended in 1950. In view of the authoritative decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Motipur Zamindary Co. (Private) Ltd. [1962] 13 STC 1 on the point in question, I have no option but to hold that the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax [1968] 21 STC 454 stands overruled but the decision in the case of Raja Visheshwar [1951] 2 STC 129 is quite distinguishable because the definition of "dealer" at that time was entirely different. 6. So far as the present case is concerned, the same is covered by the provisions of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959, wherein a dealer has been defined under Sec. 2(f) which reads as follows : "2(f) dealer means any person who sells or purchases any goods whether for commission, remuneration or otherwise and includes any undivided Hindu family, firm, company or corporation, any department of Government and any society, club or association : Explanation.-- (1) A factor, a broker, a commission agent, a del credere agent, an auctioneer or any other mercantile agent, by whatever name called and whether of the same description as hereinbefore mentioned or not, who sells or purchases goods, as aforesaid, shall be deemed to be a dealer for the purpose of this Act. (2) The manager or agent of a dealer who resides outside Bihar and who sells or purchases goods in Bihar shall, in respect of such business, be deemed to be a dealer for the purpose of this Act." From a bare perusal of the definition of dealer, as it stood in 1947 Act, after its amendment in 1950 and enumerated in Sec. 2(0 of the 1959 Act, it would appear that there is no material difference in the same as the expression "carries on business" is absent from both the definitions. This being the position, in my view, the present case is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Motipur Zamindary Co. (Private) Ltd. [1962] 13 STC 1. 7 For the foregoing reasons, the reference is answered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, I direct that the parties shall bear their own costs. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Bihar, Patna. G.G.Sohani, J. 8 I agree.