JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. B. P. SARAF, J. - By this reference under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, made at the instance of the Revenue, the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this Court for opinion : "Whether the Tribunal was correct on the facts and in the circumstances of the case to hold that both the events namely, closure of the business and disposal of assets must take place after July 1, 1981, in order to attract tax, as per amended section 2(5A), i.e., definition of business." 2. As is obvious from the question itself, the determination of the controversy involved therein would depend upon the true interpretation of section 2(5A) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 ("the Act"), as amended by Maharashtra Act 9 of 1988 with retrospective effect from July 1, 1981. However, before proceeding to do that it would be expedient to briefly set out the facts of the case which have given rise to the controversy. These facts are : The assessee, M/s. Steel Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., was engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of iron and steel. It was registered as a dealer in respect of the said business both under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 ("the Bombay Act" or "the Act") and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ("the Central Act"). The above business was, however, closed by the assessee with effect from May 2, 1981 and a new business of warehousing was started in its place. After the closure of business of warehousing was started in its place. After the closure of business of manufacture of goods, the assessee sold the machinery used by it in the above business, partly within the State, and partly in the course of inter-State trade. The Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax (Assessment) held the sales of the machinery and spare parts thereof by the assessee effected after the closure of its business as taxable under the Act and consequently assessed the same both under the Bombay Act and the Central Act. For the period October 1, 1980 to September 30, 1981, the assessment was made under the Central Act and the amount of tax due from the assessment was determined at Rs. 22,910. For the period October 1, 1980 to September 30, 1981, the assessment was made under the Central Act and the amount of tax due from the assessment was determined at Rs. 22,910. For the period October 1, 1981 to September 30, 1982, assessments were made both under the Bombay Act and the Central Act determining the tax at Rs. 2,81,720 and Rs. 4,500 respectively. Against the above orders of assessment, the assessee appealed to the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax on the ground, inter alia, that sales machinery effected by the assessee in the State of Maharashtra after the closure of business of manufacturing activity were not liable to tax. The Deputy Commissioner did not accept this contention of the assessee and dismissed the appeals. Aggrieved by the orders of the Deputy Commissioner, the assessee went in further appeal to the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal ("the Tribunal"). When the Tribunal took up the appeals for hearing, the definition of "business" contained in section 2(5A) of the Act had been amended by the Maharashtra Act 9 of 1988 with retrospective effect from July 1, 1981 and "transactions in connection with the closure of the trade, commerce, manufacture, etc." were also included in the definition of "business". The contention of the Revenue before the Tribunal was that the sales in question having been made by the assessee in the State of Maharashtra during the period from October 1, 1981 to September 30, 1982, i.e., after the amendment of section 2(5A) of the Act came into force with retrospective effect from July 1, 1981, the said sales would amount to sales made by a dealer and hence would be subject to levy of tax. On behalf of the assessee it was contended before the Tribunal that the amended definition of "business" was not applicable to dealers who had closed their business before July 1, 1981 and sales by such dealers even though effected after the coming into force of the amended definition of section 2(5A) with retrospective effect, would not fall within the purview thereof. The Tribunal accepted the contention of the assessee and held that the amended definition of "business" would be applicable only to those cases where closure had been effected after the coming into force of the said amendment. The Tribunal accepted the contention of the assessee and held that the amended definition of "business" would be applicable only to those cases where closure had been effected after the coming into force of the said amendment. According to the Tribunal, where closure took place prior to that date, the amended definition of "business" would not be available for taxing sales effected even after the coming into force of the amendment. The Tribunal, therefore, allowed the appeals of the assessee and held that in the present case where the business of manufacture had already been closed on May 2, 1981, i.e. prior to July 1, 1981, the transactions of sales of machinery effected after July 1, 1981, would not be liable to tax despite the retrospective amendment of section 2(5A) of the Act made with effect from July 1, 1981. Hence, this reference at the instance of the Revenue. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. According to the counsel for the Revenue, the taxable event being the transaction of sale, the question of its exigibility to tax under the Act would have to be decided with reference to the relevant provisions of law prevailing on the date the transaction of sale took place. To put it differently, the contention is that if on the date of sale, the transaction of sale amounted to "business within the meaning of the definition of "business" contained in section 2(5A) of the Act, the assessee would be a dealer in respect thereof and sales tax would be leviable under the Act on the turnover of such sales. The date of closure of the business would have no relevance for that purpose. The counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, submits that the date of closure is the crucial date for deciding whether the amended definition of "business" in section 2(5A) of the Act would apply or not. According to him, the definition of "business' under section 2(5A) would be applicable to cases where the closure of business has taken place after the coming into force of the amended definition of "business". Any other construction, according to the counsel, would amount to giving further retrospective operation to section 2(5A) of the Act, which was not intended by the Legislature. 4. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. Any other construction, according to the counsel, would amount to giving further retrospective operation to section 2(5A) of the Act, which was not intended by the Legislature. 4. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. For a proper appreciation of the same, with a view to determining the controversy arising in this case, it would be expedient to peruse the relevant provisions of the Bombay Sales Tax Act having a material bearing on the controversy. Section 3 of the Act, which is the charging section, provides for levy of tax on the turnover of sales or purchases of every "dealer" whose turnover exceeds the limits specified therein. "Dealer" has been defined in clause (11) of section 2 of the Act to mean, inter alia, any person who carries on the "business" of buying or selling goods in the State. The expression "business" was not defined in the Act, as originally enacted, which gave rise to controversy in regard to its true meaning, scope and ambit. With a view to set at rest, such controversies, clause (5A) was inserted in section 2 of the Act by Maharashtra Act 62 of 1974 with effect from January 15, 1975 to define "business". The definition of "business" in clause (5A) of section 2, which was incorporated with effect from January 15, 1975, reads as follows : "'Business' includes any trade, commerce or manufacture or any adventure or concern in the nature of trade, commerce or manufacture and any transaction in connection with, or incidental or ancillary to, such trade, commerce, manufacture, adventure or concern." Despite the introduction of the above definition, controversy arose whether transactions "in connection with the commencement or closure of the business" would amount to business or not. The controversy having reached the Tribunal, the Tribunal, as in the case before us, took the view that such transactions did not fall within the above definition of "business". The controversy having reached the Tribunal, the Tribunal, as in the case before us, took the view that such transactions did not fall within the above definition of "business". To meet this situation the Legislature, again stepped in and by the Maharashtra Act 9 of 1988, amended the definition of "business" in clause (5A) and added the following portion at the end of the existing definition with retrospective effect from July 1, 1981 : "and any transaction in connection with, or incidental or ancillary to, the commencement or closure of such trade, commerce, manufacture, adventure or concern ........." Though some other amendments were also made in the above definition in the present case, we have omitted to set out the same, as they are not relevant for out purpose. 5. From a reading of the above definition of "business" as amended with effect for July 1, 1981, it is clear that transactions connected with the commencement or closure of business are also transactions in the course of business. The Legislature has in fact couched the definition in very wide terms to include not only transactions connected with the commencement or closure of the business but also transactions which are incidental or ancillary to such commencement or closure. Hence, tax would be leviable under section 3 of the Act on the turnover of sales made by a dealer even after the closure of the business, if such sales are in connection with or incidental or ancillary to such closure. The taxability of sales effected after July 1, 1981, would have to be examined in the light of the above legal position. 6. Situated thus, we do not find any merit in the contention made on behalf of the assessee that tax would be leviable on transactions of sale which are connected with or incidental or ancillary to the closure of business, only in cases where the business is closed after July 1, 1981 and not on sales by dealers who had closed the business prior to that date. The above submissions, in our opinion, is misconceived because tax under the Act is leviable not on the closure of the business but on the sales of taxable goods. The material event is the sale and not the closure of business. The question that arises in such cases is whether the transaction of sale is taxable under the Act or not. The material event is the sale and not the closure of business. The question that arises in such cases is whether the transaction of sale is taxable under the Act or not. The answer would depend upon the law applicable on that date, it is therefore, the date of the transaction, which is material and not the date of closure. Date of closure of the business is irrelevant for that purpose. In the instant case, on the date the transaction took place, according to the amended definition of "business" in section 2(5A) of the Act, the transaction in question was included in the definition "business". The assessee who made such sale was, therefore, a dealer within the meaning of section 2(11) of the Act in respect thereof and liable to pay tax under section 3 on the turnover of sales arising from such transactions. 7. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to certain provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder which required a registered dealer to surrender his certificate of registration on closure of business and to get the same cancelled. We do not find any relevance of those provisions for the present purpose because tax, which is leviable under the Act on the sales of taxable goods effected by a dealer, is not dependent upon the fact whether the dealer is registered or not. If the sales effected by a dealer are exigible to tax, tax would be levied irrespective of the fact whether the dealer is registered or not. A dealer, who is liable to pay tax under the provisions of the Act on the sales effected by him, cannot avoid assessment on the ground that he was not registered or that such sales were effected after surrender of the certificate of registration. These are not relevant considerations for deciding the liability of a dealer to pay tax on the taxable sales effected by him. 8. These are not relevant considerations for deciding the liability of a dealer to pay tax on the taxable sales effected by him. 8. Our attention was also drawn by the counsel for the assessee to the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. L. Vasudeo Rao [1981] 48 STC 447, where it has been held that the sale of fixed assets on closure of the business did not amount to transaction in the course of trade, commerce or adventures or in the nature of trade or commerce within the meaning of the definition of business contained in clause (bb) of section 2 of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958. The above decision, in our opinion, has no application to the present case in view of the amended definition of business contained in clause (5A) of section 2 of the Bombay Act by which the Legislature has specifically included such transactions within the definition of business. On the face of this definition, it is not open to the assessee to contended that the transaction in question did not amount to business. In the definition of "business" contained in section 2(bb) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, there was no such provision at the material time. 9. For the reasons set out above, we are of the clear opinion that the amended definition of "business" contained in clause (5A) of section 2 of the Act would apply to all sales effected after the coming into force of the said definition. Neither the date of closure of the business nor the fact that the closure of the business had taken place before the amended definition came into force are relevant for the purpose. 10. In view of our above opinion, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. In the facts circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Reference answered in the negative.