JUDGMENT The petitioner filed O.Ps. Nos. 296 to 301 of 2002, which are now numbered as these writ petitions on being transferred from the file of the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal, on its abolition. The OPs were filed challenging the correctness and propriety and jurisdiction of the respondent Commercial Tax Officer, Esplanade I Assessment Circle, Kuralagam Annexe, Chennai, to treat the petitioner as a 'dealer' and to bring its transaction for assessment, by couching the prayer in each one of the writ petitions 'to call for the records relating to the assessment orders dated 31.01.2002 for the assessment years 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95, and 1995-96 and set aside the same as illegal'. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. It is evident on record that as against assessment order passed against the petitioner for the assessment years 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96, the petitioner moved the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal by filing O.Ps. 301 to 306 of 1999 to declare the orders of assessment made against it as illegal on the premise that the petitioner is a statutory body constituted under section 3 of the Advocates Act, 1961 and as per section 5 of the said Act, every Bar Council shall be a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal, with power to acquire and hold property, both movable and immovable, and to contract, and can sue and can be sued in its own name. The main features of the Bar Council are to have common role of Advocates prescription of qualifications rewarding status of senior advocates to some of the advocates. All the advocates are not Members of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu but, they elect certain advocates as members of the Bar Council. The Bar Council is entitled to appoint committees to administer its various functions. The Bar Council collects funds under various heads and provides certain services to the advocates. All the advocates are not Members of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu but, they elect certain advocates as members of the Bar Council. The Bar Council is entitled to appoint committees to administer its various functions. The Bar Council collects funds under various heads and provides certain services to the advocates. When those O.Ps were taken up for consideration, it appears that the petitioner heavily relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Board of Trustees of Port Trust, 114 STC 520, wherein the Supreme Court, having regard to the nature of the activities rendered by the Port Trust has held that the opinion formed by the taxing authority, the respondent therein that the Port Trust was a dealer as they are selling damaged unserviceable and unclaimed goods is not correct as the main functioning of the Port Trust is only rendering certain activities, which cannot be regarded as business activity. Thus, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of this Court reported in 108 STC 66. As the said judgment was not available to the authorities, when orders of assessment were passed, upon hearing the parties, the Special Tribunal set aside the orders of assessment and remitted back the matter to the assessing officer to redo the exercise with reference to the observations made in the decision of the Supreme Court by pointing out the relevant observations in its order. Pursuant to the same, the assessing officer passed assessments which are impugned in these writ petitions. The petitioner contended that the main activity of the petitioner is not business. When the main activity is not business in nature, the ancillary activity of receiving certain fees for rendering certain services cannot be regarded as 'sale' and hence the activities of the petitioner can never be regarded as the business activity. On that ground the petitioner Council sought to set aside the orders of assessment impugned in these writ petitions. When the main activity is not business in nature, the ancillary activity of receiving certain fees for rendering certain services cannot be regarded as 'sale' and hence the activities of the petitioner can never be regarded as the business activity. On that ground the petitioner Council sought to set aside the orders of assessment impugned in these writ petitions. The Tribunal, in its order dated 11.11.1999 referred to paragraphs 28 and 39 of the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, and certain other observations of the Supreme Court with reference to the main activity and ancillary, incidental and other activities and further with reference to the word 'business' as defined under the Act, which was considered by the Supreme Court and held that neither the main activity nor the incidental, ancillary or other activities of the Port Trust can be regarded as business activity and not amenable to tax in respect of its activities of selling unserviceable and unclaimed damaged goods. This sort of exercise has not been done in the order of assessment while treating the petitioner as an assessee and further whether the petitioner would come within the meaning of 'association of persons' as defined under section 2(g)(1) and the other activities, such as, printing, distributing and selling of welfare fund stamps under the Tamil Nadu Advocates Welfare Act, 1987 requires consideration by the authorities and on that view of the matter, the Tribunal passed the following order : "Having regard to the circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that it is not necessary to refer to the other decisions and to render findings on the basis of insufficient pleadings and total lack of materials. The best course will be to set aside the order of assessment impugned in these original petitions and permit the respondents to re-do the matter once over again. The best course will be to set aside the order of assessment impugned in these original petitions and permit the respondents to re-do the matter once over again. Before passing fresh orders, the respondents should issue a fresh notice to the petitioner and take a specific stand, whether the ancillary activity of the petitioner would amount to an independent business activity and if so, the materials on which the revenue acts and by so holding the Tribunal made it clear that it had no doubt in its mind and it is not pretended that the main activity is not a business activity as contemplated under section 2(d) of the TNGST Act." Though in the assessment orders, which are impugned in these writ petitions, reference has been made to the earlier order of the Tribunal dated 11.11.1999, which is extracted above, it is evident from the assessment orders that the assessing authority has only directed the petitioner to file its accounts. The respondent has not issued any notice as directed by the Tribunal by indicating the materials on which the revenue has come to the conclusion that the activities of the petitioner is a business activity and thereby exigible to tax. But however, it is found that the objections stated to have been made by the petitioner on 11.01.2002 and 25.01.2002 are extracted in the impugned order. By letter dated 11.01.2002 the petitioner after stating that it is not a dealer, has requested for an adjournment to file its accounts. The objections stated to have been filed by the petitioner by its letter dated 25.01.2002 are not made available in any of the typed set of papers. However certain objections were extracted in the impugned order, to the following effect : (1) The Bar Council is a statutory body rendering its services to the public at large ensuring that legally qualified persons are enrolled as Advocates and to safeguard the interest of the public against advocates committing misconduct in the course of their profession. (2) The Bar Council has no intention to carry on business or engage in business as defined in section 2(d) of the TNGST Act. (3) The Bar Council is not a dealer under section 2(d) of the TNGST Act. The duties of the Bar Council do not constitute trade, commerce or manufacture or adventure or concern in the nature of trade, commerce or manufacture. (3) The Bar Council is not a dealer under section 2(d) of the TNGST Act. The duties of the Bar Council do not constitute trade, commerce or manufacture or adventure or concern in the nature of trade, commerce or manufacture. The activities by way of disposal of forms against fees are in the course of rendering certain services for enrollment or otherwise and are not themselves the dominant activities, but incidental and ancillary to the main services rendered by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu. After referring to the above said objections and to the decisions in the cases of State of Tamil Nadu v. T.M. Muthalif & Bros, 82 STC 405; Automobile Association of Eastern India v. State of West Bengal, 81 STC 185, and Dy. CTO v. E.I.L. Co-operative Canteen Ltd., 21 STC 317, the assessing officer arrived at the taxable turnover of Rs. 5,12,168/- (for the assessment year 1990-91) and levied tax at Rs. 25,608/- and corresponding penalty, surcharge and additional sales tax were levied. Here again, the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions totally lack in material details about the activities of the petitioner. Even in the counter affidavit filed before the Tribunal in the OPs the factual foundation has not been touched and only legal issues have been raised. The petitioner except contending that it is statutory body, which is a creation under the Advocates Act and is rendering services, has not stated explicitly the details of such services. The respondent has also not stated which of the activities of the petitioner amount to sale attracting levy of tax. Hence, this Court is only inclined to remit the matter to the assessing officer after setting aside the orders impugned, with a specific direction to issue notice to the assessee - petitioner by pointing out the materials on which the revenue has formed the opinion that the activities of the petitioner would be exigible to tax and call upon the objections, if any, to the same from the petitioner and the petitioner is also directed to place all the activities which the respondent may not be aware, except the few incidental activities of receiving fees for enrollment, collecting of stamp fees for welfare funds. It is the obligation of the petitioner to place all the details about its constitution and the function it performs and services it renders and the revenue it receives from its members, number of Committees formed, services rendered by those committees, roll of members, etc. All the factual materials are directed to be placed before the assessing officer and the assessing officer shall be do the exercise in the light of the direction as above and in accordance with law. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned assessment order are set aside. The writ petitions are allowed, but remitted back to the respondent - assessing officer for fresh reconsideration with reference to the points indicated in the order of the Tribunal dated 11.11.1999.