Judgment :- Radhakrishna Menon, J. Common questions arise for consideration in these cases and they are: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the respondent-assessee was not a dealer in cashew shells, gunnies etc.? 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the principle of the decision of this Hon'ble Court in 47 STC page 73 applied to the sale of cashew shells and gunnies effected by the assessee? 3. Whether the decision of this Hon'ble Court in 47 STC requires reconsideration". 2. The respondent-assessee is carrying on the business of processing and selling cashew kernels. 3. Facts relevant and requisite to deal with the question lie in a narrow compass. The assessee used to sell the cashew shells and gunny bags which form part of the discarded things. The sale proceeds therefrom, according to the assessee, do not attract Sales-tax because the assessee cannot be said to be a dealer or even a casual trader in these articles. The assessing authority as also the appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected the above contention and entered the finding that the assessee is a dealer in these articles also. Accordingly the sale proceeds were found liable to be taxed. The appellate Tribunal in the other hand, relying on a Division Bench ruling of this court in Dy. Commr. of Sales Tax. Carborundum Universal Ltd. 1980 KLT 857 = (1981 (47) STG 73) held that the sale proceeds from these articles are not liable to be taxed. 4. To assess the sale proceeds of goods which are unserviceable and unsuitable for the business of the assessee it should be established that the assessee had the intention to carry on business in these commodities. Merely because an assessee sells goods which are unserviceable or unsuitable for his business, it cannot be said that he is a dealer in those goods. Whether a person has the intention to carry on business in these articles can be decided from the frequency, volume, continuity and regularity of transactions carried by him and that too with a profit-motive. Merely because an assessee sells goods which are unserviceable or unsuitable for his business, it cannot be said that he is a dealer in those goods. Whether a person has the intention to carry on business in these articles can be decided from the frequency, volume, continuity and regularity of transactions carried by him and that too with a profit-motive. It cannot also be said that an assessee had the intention to carry on business in such commodities merely because the price received by him by sale of those articles enters his accounts and the same may on an overall view, enhance the total profit or indirectly reduce the cost of production of goods in the business of selling in which he is engaged, (See the decisions of the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Raipur Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (1967(19) STC 1 and State of Tamil Nadu v. Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Co. of India. (1973 (31) STC 426 and the decision of this court in Deputy Commr. of Sales Tax v. Carborundum Universal Ltd. (1981) (47) STC 73). 5. On going through the records it can be seen that the Revenue has not established that the assessee who has entered the sale proceeds of these discarded goods in his books of account has had the intention to carry on business in these articles. For that matter there is nothing on record to show that the assessee has had such intention. If that be the position the findings of the Tribunal that the assessing authority has gone wrong in including the sales turnover of empty gunnies, cashew shells etc. in the taxable turnover of the appellants, is unassailable. 6. Questions Nos.1 and 2 accordingly are answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue. The third question, in our view, does not arise for consideration. It is all the more so in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in 1967 (19) STC 1 and the Division Bench ruling of this court in 47 STC 73. The T.R. Cs therefore are dismissed.