Appeal No 287 of 1967
Appeal from the judgment and order dated May 29 1964 of the Punjab High Court in Civil Writ No 1609 of 1961
Harbans Singh and R N Sachthey for the appellants
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah J
The respondents Joint Stock Company has its principal place of business in Bombay and a branch office in New Delhi
The Assessing Authority Karnal exercising power under the Punjab Professions Trades Callings and Employments Taxation Act 7 of 1956 assessed the respondent to profession tax 537 for the years 1960 61 and 1961 62 and issued a notice of demand for the amount so assessed
The High Court of Punjab quashed the notices of demand and the assessment orders holding that the respondent did not carry on trade within the State of Punjab and was not liable to be assessed to tax under the Act
The State of Punjab has appealed to this Court against the order of the High Court
Section 3 of Act 7 of 1956 provides Every person who carries on trade either by himself or by an agent or representative or who follows a profession or calling or who is in employment either wholly or in part within the State of Punjab shall be liable to pay for each financial year or a part thereof a tax in respect of such profession trade calling or employment
Provided   
The respondent it is common ground has no branch office or any other place of business in the State of Punjab
It has also not appointed any agent or representative to carry on business on its behalf within the State
The respondent supplies goods to the Government of Punjab and certain semi Government bodies in the State in execution of orders received at its branch office at Delhi
The goods are despatched from Delhi by rail or by public motor transport
Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Rate Contract between the respondent and the Controller of Stores for the State of Punjab the respondent consigns the goods sold by it to the appropriate Government Department FOR des tination
Inspection of the goods is made within the State of Punjab
The price for the goods sold is collected by presenting bills or railway receipts through Banks to the consignees
The Assessing Authority held that the respondent may rea sonably be regarded as selling goods within the State of Punjab because it was supplying goods FOR destination
The High Court held that the respondent could not in law be regarded as carrying on trade at the place at which the goods were supplied merely because the railway or other receipts were taken out in the name of the respondent and presented to the purchasers duly endorsed in their favour to secure realization of the price of the goods
Liability to pay tax under Act 7 of 1956 arises if a person carries on trade by himself or through his agent or follows a profession or is in employment within the State and not otherwise
The expression trade is not defined in the Act
Trade in its primary meaning is the exchanging of goods for goods or goods for money in its secondary meaning it is repeated activity in the 538 nature of business carried on with a profit motive the activity being manual or mercantile as distinguished from the liberal arts or learned professions or agriculture
The question whether trade is carried on by a person at a given place must be determined on a consideration of all the circumstances
No test or set of tests which is or are decisive for all cases can be evolved for determining whether a person carries on trade at a particular place
The question though one of mixed law and fact must in each case be determined on a consideration of the nature of the trade the various steps taken for carrying on the trade and other relevant facts
In the present case the respondent has no shop or office within the State of Punjab
The respondent supplies goods within the State pursuant to orders received and accepted at New Delhi and also receives price for the goods within the State
But these are ancillary activities and do not in our judgment amount to carrying on trade within the State of Punjab
We need not refer in detail to cases such as Grainger and Son vs Gough Surveyor of Taxes 1 F L Smith  Co vs F Greenwood Surveyor of Taxes2 and Firestone Tyre Co Ltd vs Lewellin 3 which interpret the expression trade exercised within the United Kingdom in the English Income Tax Acts for they merely lay down that for the purpose of the Income Tax Acts there is no single decisive or crucial test to determine whether the tax payer exercises trade at a given place
The appeal fails and is dismissed
The respondent has not appeared at the hearing
There will therefore be no order as to costs


Summary:
The respondent a Joint Stock Company having no shop or office or agent within the State of Punjab used to supply goods within the State pursuant to orders received and accepted at New Delhi and also used to receive the price for the goods within the State
The Assessing Authority Kamal assessed the respondent to profession tax under the Punjab Professions Trades Callings and Employments Taxation Act 1956
The order was quashed by the High Court
In appeal to this Court HELD  The activities of the respondent in the State were mere ancillary activities and did not amount to carrying on trade within the State
538 C D The expression trade is not defined in the Act
Trade in its primary meaning is the exchanging of goods for goods or goods for money in its secondary meaning it is repeated activity in the nature of business carried oh with a profit motive the activity being manual or mercantile as distinguished from the liberal arts or learned professions or agriculture
The question whether trade is carried on by a person at a given place though one of mixed law and fact must in each case be determined on a consideration of the nature of the trade the various steps taken for carrying on the trade and other relevant facts
537 H 538 E Grainger and Son vs Gough Surveyor of Taxes  FL Smith  Co vs F Greenwood Survevor of Taxes 8 TC 193 and Firestone Tyre Co Ltd vs Lewellin distinguished