Summarize the following court judgment. ivil Appeal No. 1069 of 1975. From the Order dated 18.5.1973 of the Calcutta High Court in Matter No. 586 of 1968. D.N. Mukharjee and G.S. Chatterjee for the Appellant. D.N. Dwivedi and C.V. Subba Rao for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PATHAK	 CJ. The question raised in these two appeals is 779 whether the assessee Railway in each appeal is a "dealer" within the meaning of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act	 194 1 and therefore liable to assessment under that Act. In C.A. No. 845 of 1974 the facts are these. The assessee South Eastern Railway disposes of unclaimed and unconnected goods for money consideration. On 1 April	 1952 the assessee applied for registration as a dealer under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act in respect of unconnected or unclaimed goods	 and was accordingly registered. It submitted returns of sales effected by it of unclaimed and unconnected goods year after year and paid sales tax pursu ant to the assessments made by the Sales Tax department. However	 in assessment proceedings for the four quarters ending March	 1959 the assessee applied to the Commercial Tax Officer for cancellation of the registration of the assessee as a "dealer" under the Act. The Commercial Tax Officer examined the case and did not accept the contention that the assessee was not a "dealer". On 6 June	 1959 he made an order rejecting the application on the basis that the disposal of unclaimed goods for valuable consideration was a regular feature of the assessee 's activities	 and that therefore the assessee fell within the scope of the Act. The assessee applied in revision before the Assistant Commis sioner of Commercial Taxes. The only point raised in the revision application was whether the assessee could be treated as a "dealer" within the meaning of the Act. It was stated on behalf of the assessee that unclaimed or uncon nected goods came into possession of the assessee but not as a result of any activity of purchase or of manufacture for sale. It was pointed out that when such good came into possession of the assessee it acquired rights over the said goods under Section 56 of the Railways Act enabling it tO sell the goods. The revision petition was rejected on 27 January	 1960 on the finding that the sales effected by the assessee were sales under the Act and that the assessee was a "dealer". The assessee proceeded in further revision to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes	 West Bengal and simi lar contentions were raised before him but the revision application was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes	 who dealt with the case	 by order dated 17 June	 1960. The assessee then proceeded in revision before the Board of Revenue	 West Bengal. The Board held that a transfer of property was involved in the auction held by the assessee and that therefore a sale of goods took place. The Board further held that the systematic and organised charac ter of business carried on by the assessee clothed him with the status of a "dealer" under the Act. At the instance of the assessee the Board of Revenue 780 referred the following question to the High Court at Calcut ta for its opinion: "Whether the petitioner Railway in so far as it effects sales of unclaimed and unconnected goods under the provisions of Section 56 of the Indian Railways Act	 is a dealer within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act	 1941?" The facts and circumstances in the case out of which Civil Appeal No. 1069 of 1975 arises are substantially similar to those narrated in the earlier case	 except that the assessee here is the Eastern Railway and it is engaged in selling scrap and unserviceable material. The question referred at the instance of the assessee to the High Court at Calcutta is as follows: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Controller of Stores	 Eastern Railways is a dealer engaged in the business of selling scrap and unserviceable materials within the meaning of cl. (c) read with C1. (g) of Section 2 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act	 1941. " The High Court delivered judgment setting forth detailed reasons therefore in the case relating to the assessee South Eastern Railway. It held that the disposal of the goods did not indicate that the Railway concerned was carrying on business as a dealer liable to assessment under the Act. The High Court disposed of the other case on the same basis as found favour with it in the earlier case	 and answered the question in favour of the assessee. In these appeals the question is whether the assessee Railway in each case is a "dealer" for the purpose of as sessment under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act	 1941. In the case of the assessee South Eastern Railway	 what were sold were unclaimed goods. The Railway was a carrier of the goods and if at the stage of delivery goods remained un claimed for a period the Railway was entitled to dispose them of. There can be no doubt that the activity of so disposing of the goods was adjunctive to the principal activity of the carriage of goods by the Railway. It is an activity which may be regarded as necessarily incidental or ancillary to its business as carrier of the goods. It seems to South Eastern Railway was a "dealer" for the 781 purposes of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act	 1941. In the other case	 the assessee Eastern Railway disposed of scrap and unserviceable material lying with it. The case is covered directly by the decision of this Court in the District Controller of Stores	 Northern Railway	 Jodhpur vs The Assistant Commercial Taxation Officer and Another	 [1976] 37 S.T.C. 423. In the circumstances the appeals are allowed	 the im pugned judgment of the High Court in each case is set aside and the questions referred to the High Court are answered in each case in the affirmative	 in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The appellant is entitled to his costs in each case. T.N.A. Appeals allowed.

The assessee South Eastern Railway	 a registered dealer under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act	 1941	 disposing of unclaimed and unconnected goods for money consideration under Section 56 of the Indian Railways Act	 1890	 applied to the Commercial Tax Officer for cancellation of registra tion as a "dealer". The Commercial Tax Officer rejected the application on the ground that the disposal of unclaimed goods for valuable consideration was a regular feature of the assessee 's activ ities	 and	 therefore	 the assessee fell within the scope of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act	 1941. Assessee 's revision application was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes on the ground that the sales effected by the assessee were sales under the Act and that the assessee was a "dealer". A second revision of the assessee was also dismissed by the Additional Commis sioner of Sales Tax. On a further revision the Board of Revenue also con firmed the status of the assessee as a "dealer"	 holding that in the systematic and organised character of business of auctioning by the assessee	 a transfer of property was involved and therefore a sale of goods took place. At the instance of the assessee a reference was made to the High Court. The High Court answered the question in favour of the assessee by holding that the disposal of the goods did not indicate that the 778 Railway was carrying on business as a dealer liable to assessment under the Act. The assessee in the connected appeal	 Eastern Railway	 was engaged in selling scrap and unserviceable material	 and a similar order was passed by the High Court in its favour. Hence these appeals by the Revenue. Allowing the appeals and setting aside the judgments of the High Court	 this Court	 HELD: 1. The assessee South Eastern Railway was a carri er of the goods and if at the stage of delivery	 goods remained unclaimed for a period	 the Railway was entitled to dispose them of. The activity of so disposing of the goods was adjunctive to the principal activity of the carriage of goods by the Railway. It is an activity which may be regard ed as necessarily incidental or ancillary to its business as carrier of the goods. Therefore	 the assessee South Eastern Railway was a "dealer" for the purposes of the Bengal Fi nance (Sales Tax) Act	 1941. [780G H] 2. The assessee in the connected appeal	 Eastern Rail way	 who was disposing scrap and unserviceable material was also a "dealer" for the purposes of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act	 1941. [780H; 781A] District Controller of Stores	 Northern Rly	 Jodhpur vs The Assistant Commercial Taxation Officer & Anr.	 [1976] 37 S.T.C. 423 applied.