R. V. RAVEENDRAN, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER is a nationalized bank. In the course of its lending activities, gold and silver articles were pledged to the blank by its borrowers. When the borrowers commit default, the bank sells the pledged articles. In that connection the first respondent has issued notice dated June 26, 1988 (annexure "a") to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to register itself as a dealer under the karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 and pay taxes on its turnover relating to sale of pledged articles, as the bank was periodically disposing of the pledged articles by way of auction sale. The first respondent also issued a notice dated August 17, 1989 (annexure "c") calling upon the bank to furnish information regarding disposal of gold/silver articles and bullion. This was followed by two notices dated September 15, 1989 (annexure "e" and "e1") calling upon the petitioner to register itself as a dealer and confirm to the provisions of the Act. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition seeking quashing of annexure "c" dated August 17, 1989 and annexure "e" and "e1" dated September 15, 1989 issued by the first respondent and seeking a declaration that the petitioner is not a dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, and not liable to get itself registered under the Act nor liable to pay any sales tax on the amount realized by the petitioner by the disposal of pledged gold and silver articles and seeking a direction to restraining the respondents from taking any steps in pursuance of annexure "c", "e" and "e1". ( 2 ) THE petitioner relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in [1967] 19 STC 1 (State of gujarat v. Raipur Manufacturing Co. Ltd.) and [1973] 31 STC 426 (State of Tamil Nadu v. Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distribution Co. of India Ltd.) the decision of the Madras High court in [1972] 29 STC 539 (New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, esplanade Division) and the Kerala High Court in [1977] 40 STC 350 (Manager, Pulpally devaswom v. State of Kerala) to contend that unless a person carries trade, commerce or manufacture as its main business activity, incidental sale or purchase of goods would not make a person a dealer in such goods. Ltd. v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, esplanade Division) and the Kerala High Court in [1977] 40 STC 350 (Manager, Pulpally devaswom v. State of Kerala) to contend that unless a person carries trade, commerce or manufacture as its main business activity, incidental sale or purchase of goods would not make a person a dealer in such goods. ( 3 ) THE learned Government Pleader has relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in District controller of Stores, Northern Railway, Jodhpur v. Assistant Commercial Taxation Officer [1976] 37 STC 423, State of Tamil Nadu v. Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Co. of india Ltd. [1973] 31 STC 426, Indian Express (P.) Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu [1987] 67 STC 474, The Hindu v. State of Tamil Nadu [1987] 67 STC 477 and the decision of this Court in united India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore [1986] 63 stc 252 to contend that the petitioner is liable to get itself registered. ( 4 ) THE matter is directly covered by the decision of this Court in Syndicate Bank v. Commercial tax Officer ILR1995 KAR 1753. It is clear that the petitioner even though a banking company, has to register itself as a dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. Hence there is no error of jurisdiction on the part of the first respondent in issuing the impugned notices. ( 5 ) ACCORDINGLY the petition is rejected. The petitioner is however granted two months' time to comply with the notices. Sri Shimoga Subbanna, learned High Court Government Pleader, to file memo of appearance within 4 weeks.