ORDER S.K. Seth, J. 1. This order shall also govern disposal of W.P. No. 1012 of 2004 as that petition is an off-shoot of controversy involved in the above writ petition and the decision in the above petition has a direct bearing on the question involved in the later petition filed by the petitioner questioning levy of penalty. 2. The question involved in the above writ petition is whether sale of movable assets, in facts and circumstances of the case in hand, amounts to sale during the course of a business so as to attract levy of tax under the M.P. Vanijyik Kar Adhiniyam, 1994 (hereinafter referred to "the Act"). Petitioner is assailing the order dated January 24, 2004 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Indore, in the revision. By the order impugned, while partly allowing the revision, the Additional Commissioner did not accept contention of the petitioner and upheld the levy of tax on the sale of movable assets effected during the assessment period from April 1, 1997 to March 31, 1998. 3. Petitioner is an incorporated limited company and a registered dealer under the Act. It was engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of copper coated steel tubes; condenser-coil; serpentine bend and other such things. Petitioner entered into an agreement (MOU) dated April 21, 1997 with STI Sanoh India Limited for sale of entire on-going business of the petitioner including plants and machineries and all other immovable and movable assets for the agreed consideration in terms of MOU. The effective date for transfer and handing over possession of assets was May 1, 1997. In view of this, for the first quarter ending on June 30, 1997, petitioner filed the return for the assessment of tax under the Act. The assessing authority held that movable assets were goods and as such, sale thereof by the petitioner was liable to tax, accordingly raised an additional demand and initiated penalty proceedings separately for filing false return. It is pertinent to observe here that the order of penalty after it was affirmed in revision is under challenge in W.P. No. 1012 of 2004. Coming back to case in hand, as stated above, petitioner challenged the assessment order but not without full success. Hence these petitions. 4. Respondents have filed reply in each petition to justify the levy of tax as well the penalty. 5. Coming back to case in hand, as stated above, petitioner challenged the assessment order but not without full success. Hence these petitions. 4. Respondents have filed reply in each petition to justify the levy of tax as well the penalty. 5. At the time of hearing, learned senior counsel submitted that sale of movable assets was upon closure of the business. It was not sale during the course of business to attract levy of tax. In support of his contention he relied upon the following decisions. Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. L. Vasudeo Rao, Monsanto Chemicals of India (P) Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu [1982] 51 STC 278 (Mad), G S.T., M.P. v. Dhirajlal & Co. [1985] Cur. TJ 560 (MP), Deputy Commissioner (C.T.) v. Cheran Transport Corporation Limited [1985] 59 STC 95 (Mad) and Coromandal Fertilisers Limited v. State of A.P. [1999] 112 STC 1 (AP) [FB]. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate-General placed reliance on the decisions in MPSRTC v. C.S.T. [1995] 21 Cur. TJ 124 (MP) and State of Orissa v. Orissa Road Transport Co. Ltd. AIR1997SC3409 . 6. After hearing learned Counsel at length, this Court is of the view that both petitions deserve to be allowed for the reasons stated below., 7. There are three stages in the imposition of a tax. In the words of Lord Dunedin, in Whitney v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue [1926] AC 37 (HL) quoted with approval in Chatturam v. Commissioner of Income Tax [1947] 15 ITR 302 [FC], first, there is a declaration of liability; that is part of the statute which determines what persons in respect of what property are liable. Next, there is assessment. Liability does not depend upon assessment but it particularise the exact sum of tax payable by a person. Lastly comes the method of recovery if the person taxed does not voluntarily pay. The moment a person covered by the Act makes a sale or purchase, as the case may be, which is subject to tax, the obligation to pay the tax arises and the taxability is attracted. At the same time, it is also equally true and well-settled that the taxing statutes must be construed with strictness and no payment is to be exacted from the subject, which is not clearly and unequivocally required by the statute. At the same time, it is also equally true and well-settled that the taxing statutes must be construed with strictness and no payment is to be exacted from the subject, which is not clearly and unequivocally required by the statute. Keeping these principles, this Court is of the view that in the instant case, assessing officer as well the revisional authority fell into an error in directing petitioner to pay sales tax in respect of sale of movable assets pursuant to MOU. The transaction in question, though results in sale of movable properties upon closure of the business, but by no stretch of imagination or reasoning, it could be said to have taken place during the course of business of the petitioner as dealer. In this connection, it is necessary to keep in mind the charging section and the definition of "dealer" in the Act. Section 5 of the Act is the charging section. It enjoins upon every dealer covered by the charging section, to pay the tax under the Act on the taxable turnover. Expression "dealer" is defined in clause (h) of Section 2 of the Act. Perusal of the definition would show that a person is a dealer within the meaning of the Act, when he carries on the business of buying or selling of goods for consideration paid or payable in future. What is required is that sale or purchase must take place during the course of business of buying or selling in view of definition of "Dealer" in clause (h) of Section 2 of the Act. "During the course of business" postulates a continuous exercise of an activity. It also connotes some real, substantial and systematic or organised course of activity or conduct set with a purpose. In taxing statutes, it is used in the sense of an whole time occupation or profession of a person which requires continuous attention and labour. To regard an activity as business, there must be a course of dealings either actually continued or contemplated. In facts and circumstances of the case as found by the assessing officer and the Additional Commissioner, there was a sale of movable assets, but it could not be said that sale was during the course of business to attract levy of tax under the Act, as was held in the decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner supra. The reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the Revenue on the decisions mentioned supra are clearly distinguishable. In MPSRTC v. CST [1995] 21 Cur. TJ 124 and State of Orissa v. Orissa Road Transport Co. Ltd. AIR1997SC3409 the question in both cases, was whether assessee was a "dealer" in respect of incidental sale of unserviceable parts and material? Considering the enlarged definition of "business", it was held that assessee was a dealer liable to tax on the incidental sale of unserviceable parts and material. The question was not whether sale was during the course of business. In this connection, it is profitable to keep in mind the decision of the Supreme court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Board of Trustees of the Port of Madras [1999] 114 STC 520. While interpreting "business" ; it was held that in taxing statutes, the word "business" is normally used in the sense of an occupation, a profession and there must be course of dealings either actually or contemplated to be continued. It was further held that the expression "carrying on business" requires something more than mere selling or buying, it is not merely the act of selling or buying makes a person dealer but the object of the person who carries on the activity is important to attract levy of sales tax. In view of this authoritative decision, I have no doubt in mind that sale of movable assets by the petitioner could not by any stretch of imagination be held to be sale during the course of business. As result of the discussion, it is not possible to sustain the order impugned and consequently the penalty order which is the subject-matter of the connected writ petition. As a result both writ petitions are allowed, however there shall be no orders as to costs of these proceedings. Order accordingly. Let a duly authenticated copy of this order be kept and treated as a part of the record of W.P. No. 1012 of 2004. Petition allowed in favour of assessee