ORDER ABHAY M. NAIK, J. - Petitioner No. 1 is a private limited company, carrying on the business with petitioner No. 2 who is one of its directors. It is engaged in the business of work of repairing the tyres, conveyor belt, etc. It applied for registration earlier under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958. This application was rejected on September 1, 1989 vide annexures P1 and P2 under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 as well as the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 on the ground that petitioner No. 1 is engaged merely in the work of repairs and does not fall within the definition of a "dealer". This would reveal in annexures P1 and P2. Thereafter, the petitioner No. 1 again applied for registration after enforcement of the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994. It was again rejected under the provisions of the M.P. Commercial Tax Act as well as the Central Sales Tax Act on February 22, 1996 and February 20, 1996 vide annexures P3 and P4 respectively on the common ground. Petitioner No. 1 received notice dated May 4, 1999 contained in annexure P5 informing thereby that in view of the work order and accompanying documents, the agreement in favour of the petitioners amount to works contract and the petitioner No. 1 falls within the definition of "dealer" as defined under section 2(h) of the M.P. Commercial Tax Act. Accordingly, it was informed that petitioner No. 1 was found liable to sales tax with effect from January 1, 1994 under section 5 of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958. A demand notice dated August 5, 1999 contained in annexure P6 has been served upon the petitioner informing thereby that the petitioner No. 1 has been held liable to the sales/commercial tax for the period from January 1, 1994 to March 31, 1999. The petitioners were required to appear for the said purpose on August 5, 1999 by the Commercial Tax Officer, Sub Circle Waidhan, District Sidhi. This has been challenged by the petitioners in the present writ petition with a prayer for the following main reliefs : (i) Petitioner No. 1 may not be held liable to pay tax on the alleged material. (ii) Petitioner No. 1 may not be held liable at least for the period from April 1, 1994 to May 4, 1999. This has been challenged by the petitioners in the present writ petition with a prayer for the following main reliefs : (i) Petitioner No. 1 may not be held liable to pay tax on the alleged material. (ii) Petitioner No. 1 may not be held liable at least for the period from April 1, 1994 to May 4, 1999. (iii) Order dated May 4, 1999 (annexure P5) and order dated August 5, 1999 (annexure P6) may be quashed. In the return, it has been contended that the petition is premature and the assessment is to be made which would be liable to be challenged in appeal. This apart, it has been stated that in view of the nature of business of the petitioners, petitioner No. 1 has been rightly held to be a dealer and no interference is warranted in the matter. Shri Mukesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Kumaresh Pathak, learned Government Advocate, for the respondents/State, made their submissions in support of their respective contentions which are being considered hereinafter in the light of the provisions of law and the documents on record. The work order of petitioner No. 1 is on record as annexure R3 which undisputably shows that petitioner No. 1 was engaged in the repair of tyres by using the rubber, chemicals, etc. The items used in the work of repairs were purchased by petitioner No. 1 and the same used to be applied while executing the repairs. Obviously, after the repairs, the material used in the work of repairs stood transferred to the Northern Coalfields Limited (who owned the tyres). The items used in the work of repairs were purchased by petitioner No. 1 and the same used to be applied while executing the repairs. Obviously, after the repairs, the material used in the work of repairs stood transferred to the Northern Coalfields Limited (who owned the tyres). "Dealer" was defined under section 2(d) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 as follows : "'Dealer' means any person who carries on the business of buying, selling, supplying or distributing goods, directly or otherwise whether for cash, or for deferred payment, or for commission, remuneration or other valuable consideration and includes :- (i) a local authority, a company, an undivided Hindu family or any society (including a co-operative society), club, firm or association which carries on such business; (ii) a society (including a co-operative society), club, firm or association which buys goods from, or sells, supplies or distributes goods to its members; (iii) a commission agent, a broker, a del credere agent, an auctioneer or any other mercantile agent, by whatever name called, who carries on the business of buying, selling, supplying or distributing goods on behalf of any principal." Petitioner No. 1 used to buy the rubber, chemicals, etc., in connection with the work of repairs. Thus, petitioner No. 1 can be said to be person who carries on the business of buying, selling, supplying or distributing goods directly, within the definition of a "dealer". As regards the word "business", it has been defined in section 2(bb) of the said Act in inclusive manner. It includes any transaction of sale or purchase of goods in connection with or incidental or ancillary to the trade, commerce, manufacture, adventure or concern referred to in sub-clause (i) of section 2(bb). Applying the aforesaid, the petitioner is found to be a dealer within the meaning of definition contained in the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958. It includes any transaction of sale or purchase of goods in connection with or incidental or ancillary to the trade, commerce, manufacture, adventure or concern referred to in sub-clause (i) of section 2(bb). Applying the aforesaid, the petitioner is found to be a dealer within the meaning of definition contained in the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958. As regards the provisions of the M.P. Vanijyik Kar Adhiniyam, 1994, clause (iv) has been inserted with effect from April 1, 1995 under section 2(h) which gives a wider connotation to the word "dealer" to the following effect : "(iv) Any person who transfers the right to use any goods for any purpose (whether or not for a specified period) in the course of business to any other person." For the purpose of this petition, "goods" have been defined as all kinds of movable property including the materials used in the repair of movable property. Thus, the materials like rubber, chemicals, etc., purchased by petitioner No. 1 for the purposes of repairing work under the contract are assessable to sales tax, and annexure P5 is, thus, not found to be suffering from any kind of legal infirmity. This view is fortified by the judgment of this court in the case of Neelam Textiles Industries v. Addl. Sales Tax Officer [2000] 33 VKN 187. Similarly, this view has also been taken by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Black Stone Rubber Industries (P.) Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan reported in [2001] 124 STC 99. Next question for consideration arises as to what is the effect of annexures P1 to P4. Shri Mukesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that petitioner No. 1 acted with bona fide intention in submitting an application for registration under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act in the year 1989, which was dismissed by the Sales Tax Officer, Raipur, on the ground that it did not fall within the ambit of "dealer". Another application for the same purpose was submitted which was again rejected on February 22, 1996. It is observed that the Commercial Tax Officer, Sub Circle Waidhan, District Sidhi, is not subordinate to respondent No. 2 and is not bound by annexures P1 to P4. However, they may be taken into consideration at the time of levying tax and imposing interest and/or penalty. It is observed that the Commercial Tax Officer, Sub Circle Waidhan, District Sidhi, is not subordinate to respondent No. 2 and is not bound by annexures P1 to P4. However, they may be taken into consideration at the time of levying tax and imposing interest and/or penalty. As regards challenge to the order dated October 29, 2001 contained in annexure P8, it is observed that it is not an order of assessment. On the contrary, the objection of the petitioners has been rejected by this order finding further petitioner No. 1 to be liable to sales tax. In view of the findings of this court stated hereinabove, a challenge to annexure P8 is also not found acceptable and the prayer to this extent is rejected. Since the petitioner has already been held to be a dealer, no immunity from sales tax/commercial tax can be accorded at this juncture. However, in case of assessment of tax and further in case of any grievance, the petitioners may very well raise other objections while pursuing the remedy against the assessment order. The petition, accordingly, stands disposed of.