JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by R. JAYASIMHA BABU, J. - We see no reason for interference. In this revision petition, the revision petitioner is a wholly owned Government of Tamil Nadu undertaking, which had been registered as a dealer till the year 1986-87, and, thereafter, chose not to renew the registration. It is not in dispute that the company is engaged in the activity of growing rubber. It is also not in dispute that the company's plantations are very extensive, stretching to as many as 2,259 hectares of matured area, with an additional extent of 2,527 hectares, which is said to be immature area. The rubber grown in these estates is also admittedly sold by the petitioner. The petitioner maintains an office at Nagercoil for the purpose of effecting the sales. It has been noticed by the appellate authority, in the course of his order, that the petitioner had not denied anywhere the fact that it has a selling organisation. 2. The contention that was advanced by the petitioner before the assessing authority, the appellate authority and the Tribunal was that it was an agriculturist and, therefore, by definition, it could not be regarded as a person carrying on business of selling or supplying goods and no sales tax under the Central Sales Tax Act could be levied. Assessments had been made against the petitioner under the Central Sales Tax Act for the assessment years 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1986-87 on a turnover, which had steadily increased from 1.80 crores in 1988-89. The tax demanded for these three years aggregates to about Rs. 119 lakhs. 3. The appellate authority, while considering the petitioner's appeal, has only remanded, the matter to the assessing authority for the purpose of considering the question as to whether the activity carried on by the petitioner was being carried on with profit-motive, and whether it has a selling organisation which is sufficiently extensive to warrant the inference that the company was carrying on the business of selling and buying goods, though the goods in question, viz., rubber was the only commodity which was sold by the petitioner. That order of the appellate authority has been affirmed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has concluded it's order as under : "In the circumstances discussed above, we feel that there is no case to interfere with the remand orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Tirupur." 4. That order of the appellate authority has been affirmed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has concluded it's order as under : "In the circumstances discussed above, we feel that there is no case to interfere with the remand orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Tirupur." 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-assessee strenuously contended before us that by a series of decisions rendered by the apex Court, it has been held that agriculturists, who sell their produce like the assessee herein, are not to be regarded as persons who carry on business merely because the agricultural produce is sold by them. Counsel referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Quilon v. Travancore Rubber and Tea Co. [1967] 20 STC 520, to the case of Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Quilon v. Midland Rubber. and Produce Co. Ltd. [1970] 25 STC 57. The Supreme Court, however, did not state the proposition in the manner contended for by the petitioner before us. The apex Court, in the decision rendered in Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Quilon v. Travancore Rubber and Tea Co. [19671 20 STC 520, did not rule out the possibility of an agriculturist selling his produce being regarded as a dealer. The court considered the existence or otherwise of factors such as profit-motive, the nature and set up of the plantation as a business organisation, the establishment of selling agencies and the like as relevant for the purpose of deciding as to whether the agriculturist can be regarded as also being engaged in business thereby rendering such an agriculturist liable to be taxed under the provisions of the sales tax enactments. 5. It was no doubt held in these decisions that the burden of establishing that the agriculturist is carrying on its activity of selling the goods produced by it as a trading activity with an intention to cam profit, was on the State. As noticed earlier, the extent of selling organisation was considered as a relevant material factor for the purpose of deciding as to whether the agriculturist was carrying on business. 6. As noticed earlier, the extent of selling organisation was considered as a relevant material factor for the purpose of deciding as to whether the agriculturist was carrying on business. 6. This Court in the case of Kanyakumari District Planters Association v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (Nagercoil, Rural Nagercoil) [1998] 108 STC 31 held that growers of rubber can be called upon to register themselves as dealers under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, but, that such registration by itself would not be decisive of the fact that the turnover is exigible to tax under that Act. It was reiterated that the burden of proof that the dealer was carrying on the business of selling or supply would be upon the sales tax authorities. Learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes) points out that the petitioner was a party to the judgment inasmuch as it is also one of the members of the association which filed that writ petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly brought to our notice the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Nilambur Rubber Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala in Civil Appeal Nos. 994-95 of 1991 decided on 13th January, 1998 (Reported in [1999] 112 STC 654 (SC)). The Supreme Court, in that case, directed the assessing authority to re-examine the question as to whether the petitioner before it could be regarded as a dealer in the light of such material as the State may choose to place before the authority. It was not held by that court that as the appellant before it was an agriculturist and producer of rubber, it was ipso facto not to be regarded as a dealer. The court clearly recognised the possibility of agriculturist being a dealer, if he is found to be carrying on the business of buying and selling, with a selling organisation and that activity is carried on with the profit-motive. 8. Counsel further submitted that the Tribunal has recorded findings against the petitioner which would come in the way of the petitioner in presenting its case before the assessing authority in an effective manner. We do not find anything in the order of the Tribunal to support that contention of the learned counsel. 8. Counsel further submitted that the Tribunal has recorded findings against the petitioner which would come in the way of the petitioner in presenting its case before the assessing authority in an effective manner. We do not find anything in the order of the Tribunal to support that contention of the learned counsel. All that the Tribunal has done is to hold that it has not found any case to interfere with, and the order of remand made by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was not being set aside. In view of the anxiety expressed by counsel, we make it clear that the Tribunal's order is only one affirming the order of remand, and the observations contained in that order of remand will not prejudice the case of the petitioner in any manner before the assessing authority. The assessing officer shall abide by the directions given by the appellate authority in his order of remand. In case it is found that the petitioner is carrying on business, after due consideration of all relevant facts, the assessee shall abide by the terms of the order of assessment subject to its right of appeal. 9. We must, before parting with this case, observe that the tax levied under the Sales Tax Act is a levy meant for gathering revenue to be used for public purposes. Whatever may be said about private traders seeking to contest such levies, we cannot command this wholly owned Government undertaking withholding from the Government taxes of such magnitude is Rs. 119 lakhs for a period of over ten years, even when it had been stated by it before the appellate authority that it had a selling organisation for the sale of rubber. 10. Having regard to the fact that the matters relate to a period which is more than ten years old, the assessing officer is directed to hear the parties and finalise the assessment within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petition dismissed.