Y. K. Sabharwal, J. ( 1 ) DELHI Transport Corporation ( for short dtc ) came into existence under the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. Periodically the DTC disposed of worn out, unserviceable buses, motor- parts and other unserviceable and/or scrap material including electrical goods. During the assessment year 1975-76, the Sales Tax Officer by assessment order dated 30th March 1982 created an additional tax demand of Rs. l,64,049. 00 holding that the sale of these items was made by DTC in normal course of its business activities. The gross turnover for the sale of such items was about Rs. l7,07,117. 00. In the appeal filed by DTC before the Tribunal the following two points were raised:- I) Whether the sale of the old and unserviceable items could be regarded as connected with or incidental or ancillary to any trade or commerce if at all carried on by the DTC ? II) Whether the sale transactions by reason of their being voluminous pro-pric vigore would bring the Corporation within the definition of a dealer ?the Tribunal after examining the provisions of Delhi Sales Tax Act (for short the Act ) in particular Section 2 (c) defining business and Section 2 (e) defining dealer , observed that a person is not a dealer unless he carries on business of selling goods. Considering the objects of establishing DTC and various decisions including the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Burmah Shell Oil Co. Ltd. , 31 STC 426 (SC) the Tribunal held that the sale of unserviceable goods, scrap or junk by DTC cannot be said to be business defined in Section 2 (c) of the Act because it is not the pre-dominant or primary object of DTC. It held that the goods purchased by DTC in the shape of buses, tools and ancillary items or other articles in the way of rendering the transport services were not purchased with the intention of reselling them but only to use them to carry out or execute the job assigned to it. It held that the goods purchased by DTC in the shape of buses, tools and ancillary items or other articles in the way of rendering the transport services were not purchased with the intention of reselling them but only to use them to carry out or execute the job assigned to it. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the sale of these articles after use as and when rendered unserviceable may be considered to be incidental or ancillary to the main activities of the Corporation but the main activity being only a form of service and not business or commerce, the incidental or ancillary adventure cannot come within the definition of business . The DTC was held not to be a dealer and thus not liable to pay sales tax on the sale proceeds of the aforesaid items. Noticing that there is some conflict between two decisions of the Supreme Court, one, in. the case of Burmah Shell Oil Co. Ltd and the other in the case of District Controller of Stores,northem Railway, Jodhpur Vs. The Assistant Commercial Taxation Officer, 37 STC 423 (SC) and that there is no reported case of this court, the Tribunal felt that it would be expedient that the question of law be authoritatively decided by this court and has thus referred for the opinion of this court the following questions: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that in providing transport facilities to the people in Union Territory of Delhi and outside, the Delhi Transport Corporation is rendering service and not carrying on a commercial activity ? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right. in holding that the sale of scrap including old and unserviceable buses, spare parts and other material or equipment by D. T. C. despite that such sales are made repeatedly and in a larger amount is not in the nature of business activity and, therefore, not a dealer liable to sales tax ? ( 2 ) IN order to answer the aforesaid questions it may be useful to bear in mind the object of establishing the Road Transport Corporation which is provided in Section 3 of Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. ( 2 ) IN order to answer the aforesaid questions it may be useful to bear in mind the object of establishing the Road Transport Corporation which is provided in Section 3 of Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. The object is mainly the desirability of extending and improving the facilities for road transport and for providing an efficient and economical system of road transport services in particular area. The dominant object is to provide service to the commuters. Under Section 30 of this Act the profits are required to be utilised as may be specified by the State Government for the provision of amenities to the passengers, utilising the road transport service, welfare of labour employed by the Corporation and for such other purposes as may be prescribed with the previous approval of the Central Government. The Corporation is not authorised except with the previous approval of the government to manufacture or maintain anything which is not required directly or indirectly for use for the purpose of undertaking of the Corporation. It also cannot provide any service for or repair any vehicle which does not belong to the Corporation or is not used directly or indirectly for the purpose of the undertaking. The Corporation also cannot purchase any vehicle for the purpose of sale to another person nor can it sell or supply to any person lubricants, spare parts, equipment or accessories. The Corporation is also not authorised to let vehicles on hire for the carriage of passengers or goods except as expressely provided for under this Act. The relevant provisions of this Act may be reproduced as under :- 18. It shall be the general duty of a Corporation so to exercise its powers as progressively to provide or secure or promote the provision of an efficient, adequate, economical and properly co- ordinated system of road transport services in the State or part of the State for which it is established and in any extended area. 19 (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, a Corporation shall have power - a) to operate road transport services in the State and in any extended area; b) to provide for any ancillary service; c) to provide for its employees suitable conditions of service including fair wages, establishment of provident fund, living accommodation, places for rest and recreation and other amenities; d ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the powers conferred by Sub-Section (1) shall include power - a) to manufacture, purchase, maintain; and repair rolling stock, vehicles, apliances, plant, equipment or any other thing required for the purpose of any of the activities of the Corporation referred to in sub-section (1 ). EXPLANATION : In this clause the expression "manufacture" does not include the construction of the complete unit of a motor vehicle except for purposes of experiment or research; b) to acquire and hold such property, both movable and immovable as the Corporation may deem necessary for the purpose of any of the said activities, and to lease, sell or otherwise transfer any property held by it; c ). . . . . . . . . . . . d ). . . . . . . . . . . . e) to authorise the disposal of scrap vehicles, old tyres, used oils, or any other stores of scrap value; f) to enter into and perform all such contracts as may be necessary for the performance of its duties and the exercise of its powers under the Act; g) to purchase vehicles of such type as may be suitable for use in the road transport services operated by the Corporation. h) to purchase or otherwise secure by agreement vehicles, garages, sheds, office buildings, depots, land, workshops, equipment, tools, accessories to and spare parts for vehicles, or any other article owned or possessed by the owner of any other undertaking for use thereof by the Corporation for the purposes of its undertaking; i ). . . . . . . j ). . . . . . . k ). . . . . . . 1 ). . . . . . . m) with the prior approval of the Stale Government to do all other things to facilitate the proper carrying on of the business of the Corporation. . . . . . . j ). . . . . . . k ). . . . . . . 1 ). . . . . . . m) with the prior approval of the Stale Government to do all other things to facilitate the proper carrying on of the business of the Corporation. 3) Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorising a Corporation except with the previous approval of the State Government i. to manufacture or maintain anything which is not required directly or indirectly for use for the purpose of the undertaking of the Corporation or to repair, store, or provide any service for, any vehicle which does not belong to the Corporation or is not used directly or indirectly for the purpose of its undertaking; ii. to purchase any vehicle for the purpose of sale to another person; iii. to sell or supply to any person lubricants, spare parts, or equipment for or accessories to vehicles; iv. to let vehicles on hire for the carriage of passengers or goods except as expressly provided by or under this Act. 4 ). . . . . . . . 5 ). . . . . . . . 6 ). . . . . . . . to let vehicles on hire for the carriage of passengers or goods except as expressly provided by or under this Act. 4 ). . . . . . . . 5 ). . . . . . . . 6 ). . . . . . . . "for facility of reference we may also reproduce Section 2 (c) and (e) of the Act as under- "2 (C) "business" includes - (i) any trade, commerce or manufacture or any adventure or concern in the nature of trade, commerce or manufacture whether or not such trade, commerce, manufacture, adventure or concern is carried on with a motive to make gain or profit and whether or not any gain or profit accrues from such trade, commerce, manufacture adventure or concern; and (ii) any transaction in connection with or incidental or ancillary to, such trade, commerce, manufacture, adventure or concern; (e) "dealer" means any person who carries on business of selling goods in Delhi and includes - (i) the Central Government or a State Government carrying on such business; (ii) an incorporated society (including a co-operative society), club or association which sells or supplies goods, whether or not in the course of business, to its members for cash or for deferred payment or for commission, remuneration or other valuable consideration; (ili) a manager) factor, broker, commission agent, del credere agent, or any mercantile agent, by whatever name called, and whether of the same description as hereinbefore mentioned or not, who sells goods belonging to any principal whether disclosed or not and iv) an auctioneer who sells or auctions goods belonging to any principal whether disclosed or not and whether the offer of the intending purchaser is accepted by him or by the principal or a nominee of the principal;" ( 3 ) THE general principle is that to construe business, commercial activity must be carried on with the object or intention of making profit. Whether such object is ultimately achieved or not is a different matter. However, as seen from the definition of business the element of profit making has been excluded. Therefore, while considering the questions posed before us, the fact that profit making element was present when DTC conducted sale of the aforesaid items would be immaterial and irrelevant. ( 4 ) WE will now consider various decisions relevant for the purpose. However, as seen from the definition of business the element of profit making has been excluded. Therefore, while considering the questions posed before us, the fact that profit making element was present when DTC conducted sale of the aforesaid items would be immaterial and irrelevant. ( 4 ) WE will now consider various decisions relevant for the purpose. ( 5 ) THE first decision to be taken note of is that of Supreme Court in State of Gujrat Vs. Raipur Manufacturing Co. Ltd. 19 STC 1 (SC ). In that case the Apex Court considered the provisions of Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953. The question was about the taxability of old containers- cans, boxes etc, discarded stores, machinery and iron scrap, miscellaneous discarded items such as cotton ropes, chindis (rags) etc and certain other items which are not presently relevant for our purposes. The question involved was whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was correct in holding that the applicants were liable to be taxed on the sale of stores and machinery and other sundry articles. It was answered in the negative in favour of assessee by the High Court and the State of Gujrat had appealed to the Supreme Court. It may be noted that the expression business was not defined in the Bombay Act. However, the expression dealer was defined in section 2 (6) of the said Act as meaning any person who carries on the business of selling goods in the State of Bombay, whether for commission, remuneration or otherwise. . . . . . ". The Supreme Court noticed its earlier decision in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. M/s. Abdul Bakshi and Bros 15 STC 644 (SC) holding that a person to be a dealer must be engaged in the business of buying or selling or supplying goods and held that the expression business though extensively used in the Taxing statutes, is a word of indefinite import. In taxing statute, it is used in the sense of an occupation or profession which occupies the time, attention and labour of a person, normally with the object of making profit. To regard an activity as business there must be a course of dealings, either actually continued or contemplated to be continued with a profit motive, and not for sport or pleasure. To regard an activity as business there must be a course of dealings, either actually continued or contemplated to be continued with a profit motive, and not for sport or pleasure. Whether a person carries on bussiness in a particular commodity must depend upon the volume, frequency, continuity and regularity of transactions of purchase and sale in a class of goods and the transactions must ordinarily be entered into with a profit motive. By the use of the expression "profit motive" it is not intended that profit must in fact be earned. The Supreme Court also held that where a person in the course of carrying on a business is required to dispose of what may be called as fixed assets or as discarded goods acquired in the course of the business, an inference that he intended to carry on the business of selling his fixed assets or discarded goods would not ordinarily arise. The decisions of various High Courts holding the seller not to be a dealer were cited with approval including the decision in the case of Commissioner of sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh, Indore Vs. Ram Dulare Balkishan and Bros, 14 STC 202, wherein a transport operator who soldunserviceable trucks, car tyres etc was held not to be a dealer even though activity was "continuous serious and large" and State of Mysore Vs. Bengal Woollen,cotton and Silk Co. 13 STC 106 where the assessee, a manufacturer of textiles who sold unserviceable goods like waste cotton, scrap iron, worn out and broken parts of machinery, old paper and tubes was held not to be a dealer. After noticing these cases the Supreme Court held that to attribute an intention to carry on business of selling goods it is not sufficient that the assessee was carrying on business in some commodity and he disposes of for a price articles discarded, surplus and unserviceable. The Supreme Court held that a person who sells goods which are unserviceable or unsuitable for his business does not on that account become a dealer in those goods unless he has an intention to carry on the business of selling those goods. Regarding a subsidiary product which is turned out in a factory regularly and continuously and is being sold from time to time, the Supreme Court held that an intention to carry on business in such subsidiary product may be reasonably attributed to the company. Regarding a subsidiary product which is turned out in a factory regularly and continuously and is being sold from time to time, the Supreme Court held that an intention to carry on business in such subsidiary product may be reasonably attributed to the company. But that is the aspect with which we are not concerned in the case in hand. Thus, the law, as it stood when there was no definition of business in the taxing statute, was that the intention of the assessee to carry on the business of selling goods was to determine the taxability or otherwise of the goods in question. In the present case,however, we arc concerned with a Statute which defines the expression business as reproduced hereinbefore. ( 6 ) THE provisions of Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act containing definition of business , almost similar to the definition of business as in the Act, came up for consideration before a Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Hyderabad, 27, STC 42. After noticing the object of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation constituted under Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950, namely, to provide or secure the provision of an efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated system of road transport in the State, the High Court held that the State Corporation could not be held to be carrying on business of selling the discarded vehicles or other scrap which has come into its possession in the course of its activities. The High Court relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Raipur Manufacturing case for coming to the conclusion that a person who sells goods which are unserviceable or unsuitable for his business does not on that account become a dealer in those goods unless he has intention to carry on the business of selling those goods. It seems that the High Court came to the conclusion as it did in view of absence of intention of the Transport Corporation to carry on the business of selling discarded vehicles and other scrap. ( 7 ) THE aforesaid decision was considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Burmah Shell (supra ). It seems that the High Court came to the conclusion as it did in view of absence of intention of the Transport Corporation to carry on the business of selling discarded vehicles and other scrap. ( 7 ) THE aforesaid decision was considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Burmah Shell (supra ). The Supreme Court was considering the provisions of Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and the transactions effected before the amendment of definition of business in 1964 and the transaction/sales conducted after 31st August 1964 the date with effect from which the definition of the expression business was amended. Under 1959 Act Section 2 (d) provided, business includes any trade, commerce or manufacture or any adventure or concern in the nature of trade, commerce or manufacture, whether or not any profit accrues from such trade, commerce, manufacture, adventure or concern; "after amendment of 1964 the definition of business was as under: business includes - (i) any trade, commerce or manufacture or any adventure or concern in the nature of trade, commerce or manufacture, whether or not such trade, commerce, manufacture, adventure or concern is carried on with a motive to make gain or profit and whether or not any profit accrues from such trade, commerce, manufacture, adventure or concern; (ii) any transaction in connection with, or incidental or ancillary to, such trade, commerce, manufacture, adventure or concern. " ( 8 ) THE question about the taxability of sales effected during two periods, One for the period from 1st April to 31st August 1964 and the second for period from 1st September 1964 to 31st March 1965, came up for consideration before the Supreme Court. The goods sold were advertisement material, canteen sales and scrap. One of the questions which came up for consideration before Supreme Court was whether the word such in sub clause (ii) of clause (d) of Section 2 refers to the trade etc defined in sub clause (i ). Similar is the provision in Delhi Sales Tax Act. Before the Supreme Court, one of the decisions cited was of Madras High Court in Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Coimbatore Division, Coimbatore Vs. Sri Thirumagal Mills Limited. Similar is the provision in Delhi Sales Tax Act. Before the Supreme Court, one of the decisions cited was of Madras High Court in Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Coimbatore Division, Coimbatore Vs. Sri Thirumagal Mills Limited. , 20 STC 287, holding that fair price shop which the assessee, a spinning mill manufacturing yarn, had opened to make available to its workmen sale of commodities at fair prices could not be said to be carrying on business of selling commodities in a fair price shop in a trade or commercial sense even if profit accrued to it and it was,therefore, with reference to the fair price shop, not a dealer within the meaning of the Act. This decision was not approved by the Supreme Court holding that the said decision has not taken note of the word such in the second sub clause, which, in the view of the Supreme Court, imports by reference the definition in sub clause (i) into that of sub clause (ii ). The Supreme Court cited with approval decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of The Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products Limited and another Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others, 30 STC 26 where similar question came up for consideration on the analogous provision of Andhra Pradesh Sales Tax Act, The High Court, in view of the definition of business as amended by Amendment Act of 1966, held that proof of profit motive is unnecessary to constitute business and the transaction of supply of food and drink to the workmen of the Canteen maintained by the assessee in pursuance of the Factory Act and the Rules, were sales and constituted business for the purpose of the Act. The Supreme Court held that the view adopted in Hyderabad Asbestos by the Andhra Pradesh High Court is in consonance with the definition of business . ( 9 ) DEALING with the aforesaid aspect and the case of Hyderabad Asbestos, learned counsel for the assessee submitted before the Supreme Court that the very two learned Judges of the Andhra Pradesh High Court had earlier rendered a decision in Andhra Pradesh Transport Corporation s case (supra) which is in conflict with the Hyderabad Asbestos Cement s case in which the former case was neither referred to nor distinguished by learned Judges. The Supreme Court held that this comment was the result of an insufficient appreciation of what was decided in Andhra Pradesh Transport Corporation s case because in the said case the assessee was not a dealer and consequently a seller of scrapped vehicles and other scrap was not liable to be assessed. The Supreme Court also noticed that in Andhra Pradesh Transport Corporation s case it was pointed out at the very outset that in view of the pronouncements of the Supreme Court, the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transpfort Corporation which is primarily constituted to provide an efficient adequate, economical and properly co-ordinate system of Road transport service, could not be held to be a dealer carrying on the business in old and scrapped vehicles and other scrap and it could not be assessed to sales tax. The Supreme Court further held that the Commercial Tax Officer was not,therefore, right in holding the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation as a dealer. In respect of the sale of scrap etc by Burmah Shell Co. Ltd i. e. the assessee before the Supreme Court, it was held that the sale was connected with the business of the assessee company and the Supreme Court further held that the assessee being an oil company has to use oil drums, hose pipes etc as part of its trading activity and any sale of these unserviceable goods as scrap is a transaction connected with its trade or commerce. Dealing with Raipur Manufacturing Co s case the Supreme Court noticed that the said decision was rendered since at the relevant time Bombay Sales Tax Act was analogous to Madras Sales Tax Act prior to its amendment in 1964. The Supreme Court thus held that the sale of scrap etc for the period prior to 1st September 1964 was not taxable but the said materials were taxable for the sales for the period from 1st September 1964. The Supreme Court thus held that the sale of scrap etc for the period prior to 1st September 1964 was not taxable but the said materials were taxable for the sales for the period from 1st September 1964. ( 10 ) FROM what is stated above it is clear that for the period after amendment of expression business the Supreme Court held, considering the naiure of activities being carried on by Burmah Shell, that it was a dealer and further held the turnover to be taxable but at the same time considering the object of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Road Corporation Act, 1950, the decision of the High Court in A. P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, 27 STC 42, was approved by Supreme Court inspite of the fact that the definition of the expression business which was considered by Andhra Pradesh High Court in 27 STC 42 was similar to the definition of expression business in Madras Sales Tax Act after its amendment in 1964. In the present case, we are concerned with the assessee whose objects are almost similar to Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and which has also been set up under Road Corporation Act, 1950. ( 11 ) ON behalf of the Revenue strong reliance has,however,. been placed on a later decision of the Supreme Court in the case of The District Controller of Stores, Northem Railway, Jodhpur Vs. The Assistant Commercial Taxation Officer and another, 37 STC 423 (SC ). In this decision the Apex court held that the activity of Railways in the selling of unserviceable material and scrap iron etc would be business within Section 2 of Rajasthan sales Tax Act, 1954 as introduced with retrospective effect by the Rajasthan Taxation Laws (Amendment)Act,1965. The Supreme Court held that since the Railways is concerned with the activity of transportation and is engaged in commerce within the meaning of clause (i) of the definition of business and that the sale of unserviceable material and scrap iron etc is transaction in connection with or ancillary to such commerce within clause (2) of that definition. The decision in the case of Burmah Shell Co. (Supra) has not been noticed in this decision. The nature of the activities being carried on by Railways have also not been noticed. The decision in the case of Burmah Shell Co. (Supra) has not been noticed in this decision. The nature of the activities being carried on by Railways have also not been noticed. If the nature of the activities of Railways had been noticed and had been found to be similar to that of the Transport Corporation by the Supreme Court and it had come to the conclusion that the Railways is carrying on business, in that event it may have been possible to say that there is a conflict between the two Supreme Court decisions. Insofar as possible, first we have to examine and consider whether the two decisions of the Supreme Court are reconcileable or not and only when such a reconciliation is not possible, the question of following one or the other decision of the Supreme Court has to be considered. In our view the Supreme Court while dealing with the case of Railways probably did not consider it necessary to refer to the case of either A. P. Transport Corporation (27 STC 442) or its earlier decision in 31 STC 426 approving Andhra case since Burmah Shell Co. in view of its activities was held to be carrying on business activity as a dealer. Thus, in our view, this later decision dealing with Railways does not render any assistance for answering the question posed for our opinion particularly when we have a decision of Supreme Court in the case of Transport Corporation which has not been held by Supreme Court, to be engaged in commerce. ( 12 ) RELIANCE has also been placed by the Revenue on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Member, Board of Revenue, West Bengal V. s. Controller of Stores, Eastern Railway, Calcutta, (74 STC 5 (SC) ). This was a case of Eastern Railways. Following the earlier decision (37 STC 423), the question was answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. In this case, the question was regarding the taxability of sales of unclaimed and unconnected goods under the provisions of Section 56 of Indian Railways Act by the Eastern Railways and whether Eastern Railways was a dealer within the meaning of section 2 (c) by Bengal Finance (Sales Tax)Act, 1941. What we have stated above regarding 37 STC 423 would be applicable to this case as well. What we have stated above regarding 37 STC 423 would be applicable to this case as well. ( 13 ) NOW we may also notice some judgments of the High Courts where after considering both the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court, it was held that the assessee was not carrying on business within the meaning of the concerned Sales Tax Act and was not a dealer while selling discarded and unserviceable material. The definition of expression business is almost similar in these Sales Tax Statutes. In State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, 74 STC 336 it was held that the activities of Transport Corporation do not constitute "business" within the meaning of Section 2 (l) (b) (b) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales tax Act and,therefore, it could not be a dealer within the meaning of section 2 (1) (e) of the said Act, and that the sale of scrap material by the Corporation in the course of its activities cannot be said to be an independent and unconnected with the main activities of the Corporation so as to attract tax. The main and primary activity of the Corporation was to provide efficient transport service which cannot be treated as business activity. It was further held that the subsidiary activity of sale of unserviceable goods etc is an integral part of the main activity and,therefore, it must escape tax. Dealing with the case reported in 37 STC 423 the Bench, in this case, came to the conclusion that the Supreme Court was not quite clear as to what were the main objects of the Railways, its activities, its constitution, its share in profit making and whether the surplus revenue be diverted for the main activities or be distributed as profits and so forth. Further, it was held that the ratio laid down by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in 27 STC 42 directly dealing with the Corporation in question, its nature and activity received the approval of the Supreme Court. Thus the High Court followed the said earlier decision. ( 14 ) IN 53 STC 329 the Orissa High Court in the case of State of Orissa Vs. Thus the High Court followed the said earlier decision. ( 14 ) IN 53 STC 329 the Orissa High Court in the case of State of Orissa Vs. Orissa Road Transport Company Ltd held that while disposing of spares and scrap the said transport company in which the State of Orissa had major interest, was not carrying on business and the assessee could not be treated as a dealer in respect of such transactions. ( 15 ) IN view of direct pronouncement of High Court (27 STC 423) approved by the Supreme Court (31 STC 426) dealing with the case of Transport Corporation like the assessee herein, to our mind, the questions referred for our opinion deserve to be answered against the Revenue, by following the direct decision and not relying upon some observations made in decision relating to the Railways which on first blush appear to be in favour of Revenue, We may. also, refer to the decision of Madhya pradesh High Court in Madhya Pradesh Stale Road Transport Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, 98 STC 320. In the said decision the transport corporation was held to be a dealer assessable to sales tax while conducting sales of unserviceable materials like tyres, tubes, spare parts etc. Reliance was placed by the High Court upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Burmah Shell Oil Co. (Supra) and it was held that definition of expression business in Madras General Sales Tax Act after amendment and amended definition of business in Madhya Pradesh Act is more or less similar. We express our respectful disagreement with the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court. We may note that the said decision does not refer to the fact that in Burmah Shell Oil Co. s case, considering the case of similar definition of business in Andhra Pradesh, the Supreme Court affirmed the Andhra Pradesh High Court decision in 27 STC 42 which squarely dealt with the question as to whether Transport Corporation was a dealer or not. The decision of Bombay High Court in Controller of Stores, Central Railways Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State, 99 STC 222 would not be applicable as it deals with the case of Railways. ( 16 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer both the questions in affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.