MOTILAL B. NAIK, J. ( 1 ) M/s. Visakhapatnam Port Trust is the petitioner in these two writ petitions, which chooses to challenge the initiation of proceedings by the respondents under A. P, General Sales Tax Act, 1957, for the assessment years 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99. ( 2 ) IN Both these writ petitions the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus declaring that Section 2 (e) of the A. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957 applies only to the persons who are "carrying on business" shall be dealers and consequently to hold that Explanation iv to the definition of dealer under Section 2 (e) of the Act as ultra vires as the petitioner is not a dealer under the said Act even after insertion of Explanation IV to Section 2 (e) of the said Act. ( 3 ) IN WP No. 3566 of 2001 the petitioner seeks to quash the demand notices issued in Form B3 for the assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98, dated 12-2-2002, by the 1st respondent and to pass such other orders as deemed to be fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. ( 4 ) IN WP No. 1828 of 2002 the petitioner seeks to quash the demand notice No. P. R. No. 3/2002 (G. 1. No. 98/99), dated 11-1-2002 relating to the assessment year 1998-99 and to pass such other orders as deemed to be fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. ( 5 ) BEFORE we set out to decide the issue raised in these two writ petitions relating to the determination of tax liability for the assessment years 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 by the appropriate authority on the basis of the turnover as affirmed by the Appellate Authority, few facts are necessary to be narrated herein order to appreciate the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and also the stand taken by the Revenue, ( 6 ) THE petitioner is a Port Trust governed under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 and Indian Port Act, 1908. It is a body corporate under these enactments and mainly carries on the functions entrusted to it under the Major Port Trust Act. Section 37 of the Major Port Trust Act provides powers of Board to order sea-going vessels to use docks, wharf s etc. It is a body corporate under these enactments and mainly carries on the functions entrusted to it under the Major Port Trust Act. Section 37 of the Major Port Trust Act provides powers of Board to order sea-going vessels to use docks, wharf s etc. and Section 35 provides that the Board may execute such works within the limits of the Port and provides such appliances as it may deem necessary or expedient. Section 35 (1) of the said Act further provides powers to the Board for sinking of tube-wells and equipment and use of boats, barges and other appliances for the purpose of supply of water at the Port. Section 42 of the said Act provides for performance of services by Board or other person. ( 7 ) FROM a reading of these provisions, it would appear that the statutory duty of the Port is to provide water and other services like pilot-age (tugging by use of tug boats) and carnage for unloading/loading to the visiting vessels, which call on the Port. It is the statutory obligation on the Board of Trustees to carry out the functions subject to the over all supervision of the Central Government as provided under Sections 35 to 47 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. ( 8 ) IN the earlier round of litigation, for the assessment years 1969-70 to 1974-75, the Sales Tax Authorities levied sales tax on the petitioner for various items such as supply of water to visiting vessels, bunkering visiting vessels with liquid fuel, offering of tender documents for a consideration to prospective contractors, supply of water and issue of stores to accepted contractors, supply of water and issue stores to its own engineers and staff and disposal of unserviceable material or surplus material by auction or by inviting tenders. The writ petitioner challenged the initiation of proceedings by the Authorities under the A. P. General Sales Tax Act for the said activities undertaken by the petitioner as indicated before this Court in W. P. Nos. 3107 to 3112 of 1976. The writ petitioner challenged the initiation of proceedings by the Authorities under the A. P. General Sales Tax Act for the said activities undertaken by the petitioner as indicated before this Court in W. P. Nos. 3107 to 3112 of 1976. This Court, by a common judgment, dated 17-6-1977 held that the petitioner is not a dealer and it cannot be said to be carrying on any business and it merely provides facilities to the incoming vessels and therefore, the petitioner is not liable to pay sales tax under the A. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957 on its activities. As against the said judgment, the Department filed appeals before the Hon ble Supreme Court, which were dismissed. ( 9 ) IT is alleged by the petitioner that, despite the dismissal of the appeals filed by the Department, the Department made yet another effort by issuing demand notices for payment of sales tax for the assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93 to writ petitioner and questioning the same, the writ petitioner filed W. P. No. 560 of 1994 before this Court and this Court seems to have granted interim stay directing the respondents not to demand any tax pending a decision in WP No. 560 of 1994. ( 10 ) WHILE matters stood thus, the respondents i. e. . Commercial Tax Department initiated proceedings against the writ petitioner, made assessment for the years 1996-97 and 1997-98 under the A. P. General Sales Tax Act determining the liability to the tune of Rs. 2,32,02,080. 00 and Rs. 2,47,84,340. 00 for the said assessment years respectively. As against the said assessment orders, the writ petitioner filed appeals before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner by common order partly dismissed the appeals and remanded the matter to the Original Authority With a direction to examine the receipts in detail and levy tax if they are eligible or give exemption as per the provisions of the A. P. General Sales Tax Act. The Original Authority after examining the matter on the basis of the order passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner made final assessment determining the tax liability to the tune of Rs. 2,14,20,280. 00for the assessment year 1996-97 and Rs. 2,11,94,640. The Original Authority after examining the matter on the basis of the order passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner made final assessment determining the tax liability to the tune of Rs. 2,14,20,280. 00for the assessment year 1996-97 and Rs. 2,11,94,640. 00 for the assessment year 1997-98 towards sales tax, for the amounts received by sale of tender forms and cranage and pilot-age and for the miscellaneous income and issued two notices of final annual assessment and demand dated 12. 2. 2001 directing the petitioner to pay an amount, of Rs. 1,91,91,070. 00 for the assessment year 1996-97 and an amount of Rs. 1,90,42,408. 00 for the assessment year 1997-98 towards the balance of tax after deducting the tax already paid, within a period of 15 days from the date of service of the said notices. As against the demand made by the Original Authority through the notices dated 12. 2. 2001, the Appellate Deputy Commissioner granted stay of collection of disputed tax on condition of the petitioner paying 10% of the disputed tax, which was affirmed by the Joint Commissioner. The petitioner carried the matter before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal questioning the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner insofar as it went against the petitioner. The petitioner filed WP No. 3566 of 2001 before this Court questioning the demand notices issued by the respondents, dated 12-2-2001 for the assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98 besides seeking other reliefs as indicated above. The petitioner carried the matter before the Hon ble Supreme Court relating to grant of stay and the Hon ble Supreme Court granted stay of collection of the disputed tax, however desired that the principal issue could be decided by this Court as early as possible. ( 11 ) THE respondents issued another show-cause notice dated 6. 1. 2001 proposing to determine tax liability for the assessment year 1998-99 on the total turn over of Rs. 37,84,97,000. 00 arising out of sale of tender forms, cranage and pilot-age and later passed an assessment order, dated 11-1-2002 determining the tax liability to the tune of Rs. 2,27,86,940. 00 for sale of tender forms, cranage and pilot-age and also issued a notice in Form XIII imposing penalty to the tune of Rs. 6,83,60,820. 00, against which WP No. 1828 of 2002 is filed seeking to quash the assessment order dated 11-1-2002 and to grant other reliefs as indicated above. 2,27,86,940. 00 for sale of tender forms, cranage and pilot-age and also issued a notice in Form XIII imposing penalty to the tune of Rs. 6,83,60,820. 00, against which WP No. 1828 of 2002 is filed seeking to quash the assessment order dated 11-1-2002 and to grant other reliefs as indicated above. In view of the stay granted by the Hon ble Supreme Court on the collection of the disputed tax for the assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98, which is the subject-matter of W. P. No. 3566 of 2001, this Court granted interim stay of the assessment order dated 11-1-2002 for the assessment year 1998-99 in W. P. No. 1828 of 2002. In view of the stay granted by the Hon ble Supreme Court on the collection of the disputed tax for the assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98, which is the subject-matter of W. P. No. 3566 of 2001, this Court granted interim stay of the assessment order dated 11-1-2002 for the assessment year 1998-99 in W. P. No. 1828 of 2002. ( 12 ) AS these two writ petitions have fallen for consideration, they are decided by the following common order: ( 13 ) THROUGH the amendment (Act 27 of 1996), Explanation-IV to Section 2 (e) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") is inserted, which reads as under:"explanation-IV--FOR the purpose of this clause, each of the following persons and bodies who sells or dispose of any goods including unclaimed or confiscated or unserviceable goods or scrap, surplus, old, obsolete, or discarded material or waste products whether by auction or otherwise, directly or through an agent for cash, or for deferred payment or for any other valuable consideration shall be deemed to be a dealer to the extent of such disposals or sales, namely:- (a) the Port Trust; (b) Municipal Corporation and Municipal Councils, and other local authorities; (c) Railway administration as defined under the Indian Railways Act, 1890; (d) Shipping, transport and construction companies; (e) Air transport companies and air-lines; (f) Transports, holding permits for transport vehicles granted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which are used or adopted to be used for hire; (g) The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation; (h) Customs Department of the Government of India administering the Customs Act, 1962; (i) Insurance and financial corporations or companies and Banks included in the Second Schedule to the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; (j) Advertising agencies; (k) Any other Corporation, company body or authority owned or set up by or subject to administrative control of the Central Government or any State Government.)" ( 14 ) BY virtue of the amendment to the definition of dealer brought to Section 2 (e) of the Act, adding Explanation-IV, the Commercial Tax Department initiated proceedings against the petitioner, determining me tax liability on the sales of tender forms, on the amounts received from cranage and pilot-age under Section 5-E of the Act and for the miscellaneous income relating to the assessment years 1996-97, 1997-98 and for 1998-99, which are the subject-matter in W. P. No. 3566 of 2001 and WPNo. l828 of 2002. ( 15 ) ON behalf of the petitioner, Sri K. Srinivasa Murthy, learned Counsel, contended that the issue with regard to whether the Port Trust is a dealer and doing business and is liable to be assessed under the A. P. General Sales Tax Act on account of the income received from the sales offender forms, amounts received from cranage and pilot age and other miscellaneous income, in an earlier round of litigation, a Division Bench of this Court in Board of Trustees of the Visakhapatnam Port Trust v. Commercial Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam and another, 43 STC 36 (WP Nos. 3107 to 3117 of 1976, dated 17-6-1977) held that the Port Trust is not a dealer and is not doing business and as such not liable to pay any tax under the A. P. General Sales Tax Act. Referring to the miscellaneous income, which is sought to be taxed by the Department, the learned Counsel submitted that this miscellaneous income cannot be treated as income for sale of goods. According to the learned Counsel, this income was received in respect of the items like fixed deposits, interest on advances, penalties, survey fees, telephone rent and call charges, medical attendance charges etc. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel drew our attention to a decision of the Calcutta High Court in Bank of India v. Commercial Tax Officer, Central Section, Calcutta, 1987 Vol. 67 STC 199, wherein the question whether the bank locker facility provided by the banker and any fee collected would fall within the taxation, held that such facilities provided and any fee received would not amount to sale and no liability under Sales Tax Act. The learned Counsel also took us to a latter decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu and another v. Board of Trustees of the Port of Madras, 1999 Vol. 114 STC 520. Relying on the above decision, the learned Counsel stated that the Hon ble Supreme Court, on consideration of various contentions raised before it and considering the activity of Port Trust as envisaged under Section 35 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, declared that the Port Trust is not a dealer and no business activity be undertaken by the Port Trust and as such it is not liable to be assessed under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The learned Counsel also stated that in the above decision, the Hon ble Supreme Court categorically declared that the sale of tender forms, receiving fee for providing cranage and pilot-age services by the Port Trust are ancillary to the main activity and as such could not be liable to be taxed as the activity undertaken is not a business activity . ( 16 ) ACCORDING to the learned Counsel, though through the amendment (Act 17 of 1996) Explanation-IV is inserted to Section 2 (e) of the A. P. General Sales Tax Act with effect from 1-8-1996, such explanation, in any way, would not affect the status of the Port Trust to hold that it is a dealer within the meaning of Section 2 (e) of the Act and the activity undertaken by the Port Trust is not a business activity falling within the purview of the Act. The learned Counsel stated that the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court (supra) covers the entire gamut of the contentions and therefore, merely because Explanation-IV is inserted to Section 2 (e) of the Act, new meaning cannot be given to tills explanation. The learned Counsel explained further submitting that such an inclusion of Explanation in the list under Explanation-IV has to be understood that a Port Trust, which sells or disposes of any goods mentioned in Explanation-IV could be treated as a dealer for a limited purpose only to the extent of such sales or disposals provided if the main activity of the Port Trust is a business activity . According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, when the petitioner-Port Trust is not carrying on any business activity it cannot be treated as a dealer and if it is to be assumed that the writ petitioner is a dealer. Though it is not carrying on business and is to be brought under the net of the provisions of the Act for determining liability, it would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Though it is not carrying on business and is to be brought under the net of the provisions of the Act for determining liability, it would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Elaborating his submission on this aspect the learned Counsel stated that while in case of everybody else, a person would be a dealer only if he is carrying on any business and in case of only these 11 persons and bodies, which are brought under Explanation-IV to Section 2 (e) of the Act are to be treated as dealers even though they are not carrying on any business , it would undoubtedly amount to violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and this attitude amounts to denial of equal protection under law. According to the learned Counsel, even though the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court (supra) was brought to the notice of the Department, the Department ignored the same only on the ground that the said decision is after the amendment brought to Section 2 (e) of the Act and has no application. In this back ground, the learned Counsel stated that the respondents are bent upon to rope in every body on the earth under the tax net in order to increase revenue to the Department. The learned Counsel submitted that as held by the various Courts including the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court (supra) the Port Trust can never be treated as a dealer within the meaning of Section 2 (e) of the Act and its activity can never be treated as a business activity attracting the provisions under Section 5-E of the Act. ( 17 ) ON behalf of the respondents i. e. , Commercial Taxes Department, the learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes mainly submitted that by virtue of the amendment brought to Section 2 (e) of the Act, which has come into force with effect from 1-8-1996, the Department is entitled to assess the liability under the A. P. General Sales Tax Act. He also contended that the case before the Hon ble Supreme Court (supra) is after the amendment brought to Section 2 (e) of the Act and therefore, pleaded that the ratio laid down in the above decision has no application to the facts of this case. He also contended that the case before the Hon ble Supreme Court (supra) is after the amendment brought to Section 2 (e) of the Act and therefore, pleaded that the ratio laid down in the above decision has no application to the facts of this case. Apart from raising these objections in general, the learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes, referring to WP No. 1828 of 2002 submitted that the petitioner approached this Court only on the basis of a show-cause notice and that the petitioner has not exhausted all the remedies available to it under the scheme of the Act and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and on that ground alone W. P. No. 1828 of 2002 has to be dismissed. He pleaded for dismissal of both the writ petitions. ( 18 ) IN order to appreciate the rival contentions at the cost of repetition, we may examine the definition of a dealer as appearing under Section 2 (e) of the Act. "section 2 (e): dealer means any person who carries on the business of buying, selling supplying or distributing goods (or delivering goods on hire purchase or on any system of payment by instalments, or carries on or executes any works contract involving supply or use of material) directly or otherwise, whether for cash, or for deferred payment, or for commission, remuneration or other valuable consideration, and includes. . . . . " ( 19 ) THE other relevant provision which has to be looked into by us is the charging Section i. e. , Section 5. Section 5 (1) of the Act reads thus:"section 5 (1): Save as otherwise provided in this Act, every dealer shall pay tax under this Act for each year on every rupee of his turnover of sales or purchases of goods in each year irrespective of the quantum of his turnover at the rates of tax and at the points of levy specified in the Schedules" ( 20 ) THE other charging provisions are 5-A, 5-C, 5-E and 6. All these Sections impose liability to pay sales tax by a dealer i. e. , a person who carries on business of buying, selling, supplying or distributing goods etc. All these Sections impose liability to pay sales tax by a dealer i. e. , a person who carries on business of buying, selling, supplying or distributing goods etc. ( 21 ) FOR the assessment years 1969-70 to 1974-75 the Commercial Taxes Department initiated proceedings against the petitioner on the supply of water to the visiting vessels, bunkering visiting vessels with liquid fuel, offering of tender documents for a consideration to prospective contractors, supply of water and issue of stores to accepted contractors, supply of water and issue stores to its own engineers and staff and disposal of unserviceable material or surplus material by auction or by inviting tenders. The assessment completed for the years as indicated above fell for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in WP Nos. 3107 to 3112 of 1976 and the Division Bench of this Court by rendering the decision (supra) declared that the petitioner is not a dealer and it cannot be said to be carrying on any business . The Division Bench further held that none of the activities undertaken by the petitioner would amount to doing business either under its constitution or as defined under Section 2 (lxbbb) of the Act. Visakhapatnam Port Trust is a major Port Trust and its activity is regulated under various provisions of Major Port Trusts Act. The Port Trust carries on various activities and undertakes works like construction etc. . , which are necessary for maintaining the Port Trust. When construction work is undertaken, tenders are called for from various contractors all over the country, tender forms are supplied on at nominal rates. Likewise, when ships are brought to the Port for loading and unloading, cranage services and pilot age services are also utilised. The main purpose for which the Port Trust is established is only to carry on the functions entrusted to it under the Major Port Trusts Act. ( 22 ) THE activities undertaken and the services rendered by the Port Trust i. e. , providing cranage, pilot-age, supply of water, sale of tender forms etc. The main purpose for which the Port Trust is established is only to carry on the functions entrusted to it under the Major Port Trusts Act. ( 22 ) THE activities undertaken and the services rendered by the Port Trust i. e. , providing cranage, pilot-age, supply of water, sale of tender forms etc. , fell for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in a batch of writ petitions as discussed above and the Division Bench held that those activities are ancillary to the main activity and cannot be considered as a business activity which attracts tax liability since no business activity is undertaken by the Port Trust, the Department is not entitled to assess the petitioner on the basis of these activities. As against this decision rendered by this Court in the decision (supra), the matters were carried to the Hon ble Supreme Court by the Department and the Hon ble Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions. ( 23 ) IN Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. C. T. O. , Company Circle, Visakhapatnam, 10 APSTJ 16, a question came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court as to whether the tax levied under Section 5-E of the Act on the hire charges collected by the Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. , on the machinery like cranes, docers, dumfors, road rollers, compressors etc. , given to the contractors for the purpose of being used in the execution of the contract work, the Division Bench held that supply of cranes, docers, differs, road rollers, compressors etc. , to the contractors for the purpose of being utilised in the execution of contract work does not amount to transfer of the right to use goods as the goods are at all times within the control of the management. The Division Bench further held that taxable event under Section 5-E of the Act is transfer of the right to use any goods and that the essence of transfer is passage of control over the economic benefits of the property which results in terminating rights and other relations in one entity and creating diem in another. The Division Bench further held that taxable event under Section 5-E of the Act is transfer of the right to use any goods and that the essence of transfer is passage of control over the economic benefits of the property which results in terminating rights and other relations in one entity and creating diem in another. Distinguishing the situation, the Division Bench held that the right in the goods lent are not transferred and are retained with the management and as such imposition of sales tax on the hire charges of the machinery under Section 5-E of the Act is ultra vires and illegal. ( 24 ) APPLYING this ratio also to the facts of the case on hand, what all the Port Trust has done, admittedly, is collection of nominal fee for supply of tender forms, collection of hire charges for rendering services for loading and unloading purposes by providing cranage and pilot-age. In order to attract sales tax, the Revenue has to necessarily establish that the Port Trust s activity is a business activity* and it is a dealer and therefore, it is liable to be assessed under the provisions of the Act. ( 25 ) IN the decision (supra), the Hon ble Supreme Court while examining a relatively similar provision under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in WA No. 1015 of 1994, dated 10-12-1996, considered various decisions with regard to the activities undertaken. by the Port Trust and the liability to pay sales tax according to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act in the light of an amendment brought to the provisions of the Act and the subsequent amendment brought to Sub-clause (iii) of Section 2 (g) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act by amendment (Act 31 of 1992), which defines a dealer and reviewed the entire case law. The Hon ble Supreme Court, having regard to the activity undertaken by the Port Trust, held that in order to subject the Port Trust within the tax net, the Revenue has to establish that the Port Trust was carrying on business , which required some thing more than merely by buying or selling. The Hon ble Supreme Court, having regard to the activity undertaken by the Port Trust, held that in order to subject the Port Trust within the tax net, the Revenue has to establish that the Port Trust was carrying on business , which required some thing more than merely by buying or selling. The Hon ble Supreme Court observed that what has to be examined is whether the transaction is in connection with incidental or ancillary or to such trade, commerce, manufacture, adventure or concern and the exclusion of profit motive". The Hon ble Supreme Court held that sale of miscellaneous, old and discarded items, could not be treated as part of the activities of carrying on business even if the sales were frequent and their volume was large and that even if sale of discarded goods are involved, it could not be held to be connected with the main business. ( 26 ) AT Para 28 of the decision (supra) the Hon ble Supreme Court, referring to various facets of the contentions and various decisions held thus:"in our view, if the main activity was not business , then the connected, incidental or ancillary activities of sales would not normally amount to business unless an independent intention to conduct business in these connected, incidental or ancillary activities is established by the Revenue. It will then be necessary to find out whether the transactions which arc connected, incidental or ancillary are only an infinitesimal or small part of the main activities. In other words, the presumption will be that these connected, incidental or ancillary activities of sales are not business and the onus of proof an independent intention to do business in these connected, incidental and ancillary sales will rest on the department. " ( 27 ) IT is true that in the amendment through Explanation-IV, the Department desired to expand the meaning while bringing 11 persons and bodies which include State and Central Government Corporations by insertion of Explanation-IV to Section 2 (e ). As long as such bodies or persons do not undertake business activity within the ambit of Section 2 (e) of the Act, they cannot be treated as dealers and their activity cannot be treated as business within the meaning of Section 2 (l) (bbb) of the Act, which reads as under. As long as such bodies or persons do not undertake business activity within the ambit of Section 2 (e) of the Act, they cannot be treated as dealers and their activity cannot be treated as business within the meaning of Section 2 (l) (bbb) of the Act, which reads as under. "section 2 (1) (bbb) Business includes ;-- (1) 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 or undertaken with a motive to make gain or profit and whether or not any gain or profit accrues therefrom; and (ii) any transaction in connection with, or incidental or ancillary to, such trade, commerce, manufacture, adventure or concern. " ( 28 ) THE issue whether the Port Trust is a dealer and its activity is a business activity has been settled in various decisions as discussed by us and therefore, any efforts made by the Commercial Tax Authorities to give a new meaning to the settled issue is impermissible. Merely because an amendment is introduced to Section 2 (e) of the Act through Explanation-IV bringing to the fold of Section 2 (e), 11 persons and bodies, as long as the activity of the Port Trust is not a business activity , the Port Trust cannot be treated as a dealer within the ambit of Section 2 (e) of the Act and it can never be subjected to tax liability under Section 5 of the Act. In the decision (supra) it is noticed that some what similar amendment was also introduced in the year 1992 to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act giving added meaning to the expression dealer and the Hon ble Supreme Court, in the said case, considered the effect of such amendment and categorically held that the main activity of the Port Trust is not a business activity and therefore it cannot be treated as a dealer for the purpose of determining tax liability under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. It is needless to repeat again and again this concluded finding given by various Court about the status of the Port Trust. It is needless to repeat again and again this concluded finding given by various Court about the status of the Port Trust. The Visakhapatnam Port Trust, being one of the major ports, falls on the same analogy with the Madras Port Trust and the activity undertaken by the Visakhapatnam Port Trust is also similar to that of the Madras Port Trust and therefore, there cannot be two separate statutes one for the Madras Port Trust and the other for the Visakhapatnam Port Trust, which are governed under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. We may say that for all the queries raised before us on the basis of the so called amendment brought to Section 2 (e), the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court (supra) is the complete answer and therefore, the submissions made before us by the learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes require no further discussion, as the main activity of the Port Trust is held to be a non-business activity in all the decisions cited supra. Therefore, when the said activity is not a business activity as defined under Section 2 (1) (bbb) and in the absence of the respondents showing to the Court that the activity undertaken is a business activity and that the Port Trust has to be treated as a dealer and is liable to be assessed under Section 5 of the Act, it is difficult for us to take a contra view. When the main activity of the Port Trust is service activity, the ancillary or incidental activity undertaken by it cannot be brought under the net of A. P. General Sales Tax Act. ( 29 ) IN view of the above discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the various Court as stated by us, we have no doubt in our mind to hold that the activity undertaken by the writ petitioner-Port Trust is not a business activity , but it is discharging obligation on its part as envisaged under Sections 32 to 37 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. Accordingly, we declare that Section 2 (e) of the A. P. General Sales Tax Act applies only to the persons, who are carrying on business who shall be the dealers . Accordingly, we declare that Section 2 (e) of the A. P. General Sales Tax Act applies only to the persons, who are carrying on business who shall be the dealers . The petitioner though sought to declare the Explanation-IV to Section 2 (e) of the Act as ultra vires, it is not necessary for us to declare that part of the provision as ultra vires and that provision could be made use by the Department in case such persons or bodies undertake any business activity as defined under Section 2 (l) (bbb) of the Act. ( 30 ) THOUGH the learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes urged for dismissal of WP No. 1828 of 2002 on the ground of non-availing statutory remedies, we are not persuaded to agree with the submission, since we have declared that the respondents have no authority to rope in the transaction of the petitioner referred to above for levying tax under the net of A. P. Genera! Sales Tax Act. ( 31 ) FOR all the reasons, we set aside the demand notices impugned in WP No. 3566 of 2001 and W. P. No. 1828 of 2002 and consequently allow the writ petitions in the above terms, however in the circumstances, without costs.