Summarize the following court judgment. ivil Appeal No. 2705 of 1977. From the Judgment and Order dated 28.10.1975 of the Madras High Court in Tax Case No. 492 of 1975. AND Civil Appeal No. 512(NT) of 1989. From the Judgment and Order dated 13.2.1978 of the Madras High Court in Tax Case No. 332 of 1975. R. Mohan and R.A. Perumal for the Appellant. A.T.M. Sampath for the Respondent in C.A. No. 2705 of 1977. Mrs. Janaki Ramachandran for the Respondent in C.A. No. 5 12 (NT) of 1989. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI	 J. The question involved in these two matters is the same. So we ant leave in SLP 2440 of 1979 and proceed to dispose of both the appeals together. The respondent assessee in each of these cases acquired a reserve forest. It is common ground that the acquisition was effected with a view to raise a coffee and cardamom plantation thereon. For doing this	 the assessee had to clear a portion of the forest and in the process fell the unwanted trees standing thereon as natural growth. The cut trees were sold by the assessee in the form of firewood as well as in the form of cut sizes of timber as well as sleep ers. Some of the growth was also converted into charcoal and the resultant charcoal sold. On these facts	 the question arose in each of these cases whether the price 411 realised by the assessee on the sale of firewood	 timber	 sleepers and charcoal was assessable to sales tax. We are concerned with the assessment year 1969 70. The assessee 's turnover	 in respect of these items in the case of Shanmugha Estate was Rs.3	00	396.16 which included a turnover in charcoal of Rs.86	829.24. In the case of Shakti Estate	 the disclosed turnover was as follows: Firewood 1	98	687.08 Sized timber 83	490.89 Sleepers 28. 164	00 _____________ 3	10	47.97 _____________ The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer added 5% towards omissions and assessed a turnover of Rs.3	25	859.07. The further facts disclosed in the case of Shakti Estate are these. The assessee is a firm of 10 individuals. It had not purchased the forest but had got a lease which entitled them to enjoy the usufruct of the forest by its exploita tion. Clause (4) of the partnership deed recites that "the firm will carry on the development and exploitation of the lands". The firm had been functioning for the past 7 years and had been paying sales tax on its sales of firewood	 timber and sleepers. But for the first time in assessment year 1968 69	 it put forward a claim that the above turnover was not assessable in its hands. The full facts in the case of Shanmugha Estate are not on record but	 except for the fact that this was a case of a purchase of a forest by the assessee	 and that the plantation does not seem to have started yielding crops	 the facts are broadly similar to those in the case of Shakti Estate. The assessing officers and the first appellate authorities held the turnover in question to be taxable. But the Tribunal reversed this and held that the turnover was not liable for assessment to sales tax. The High Court had dismissed the revision filed by the State in the case of Shakti Estate in respect of assessment year 1968 69 by a short order which read: "We are of the view that the Tribunal was right in its order. This was a case of a lease. It did not involve any sale of trees. Merely because the trees cut were sawn to sizes	 that would not by itself make out a sale. " 412 In respect of assessment year 1969 70 also	 the States revision was dismissed following the above order. In the case of Shanmugha Estate the department challenged the Tribunals finding only in respect of sales of sized timber. The suggestion that the sizing of trees into timber or their conversion into sleepers would make a difference was not accepted by High Court	 which	 following the decision of the Kerala High Court in Kuttirayin & Co. vs State	 [1976] 38 STC 282	 affirmed the Tribunals order by its judgment re ported in (1979) 43 STC 226. The State appeals from the judgments in both the cases. The answer to the question posed depends on the inter pretation of the expressions "dealer" and "business"	 as defined under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. These definitions read thus: "Business includes: (i) any trade	 or commerce or manufacture or any adventure or concern in the nature of trade	 commerce or manufacture whether or not such trade	 commerce	 manufacture	 adventure or concern is carried on with a motive to make gain or profit and whether or not any profit accrues from such trade	 com merce	 manufacture	 adventure or concern; and (ii) any transaction in connection with	 or incidental to ancillary to such trade	 com merce	 manufacture	 adventure Or COnCern. " "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	 company or Hindu undi vided family	 firm or other association of persons which carries on such business; (ii) a casual trader . . " It is seen that	 in the case of Shakti Estate	 the planta tion has 413 started functioning and there is turnover in coffee and cardamora to the extent of Rs.58	000 while it is stated that the Shanmugha Estate has not yet started deriving income from its plantation. The principal contention of the asses sees is that they are	 or may	 no doubt	 become	 dealers in coffee or cadamore or other crops grown	 or to be grown	 on the estates but that they are by no means dealers in fire wood	 timber	 sleepers or charcoal. They say that their intention in acquiring the forest or rights therein was not to deal in the forest produce whether as firewood	 timber	 charcoal or otherwise but to start a plantation thereon. That business could not be started or carried on without clearing the forest trees and so the activity of clearing the jungle was one that was not only unconnected with the assessees business as such but was something the assessees were constrained to indulge in. This amounted to nothing more than a mere realisation by an owner of a part of his property to the best advantage and cannot be described as a trading activity or as partaking of the character of an adventure or concern in the nature of trade. We do not	 however	 think that the above contention of the assessees can be accepted. The facts show that each of the assessees has acquired a huge forest area which contains a large number of trees. When the asseessee purchased the forest or got it on lease for starting a plantation thereon	 it was aware of the existence of trees (some of them quite valuable) on the land and the price paid must inevitably have included some value for these trees as well. The asses sees also knew full well that before they could start the plantation	 as well as during the running of it	 they would have to clear the forest in stages by cutting off the trees standing thereon and disposing of the same from time to time. Each of these assessees is a firm the purpose of which is to carry on business. It will be quite proper and natural to infer that the intention of the assessees at the time of purchase included not only an intention to grow and sell coffee and cardamom and other crops but also an intention to dispose of the trees standing on the land to the best advan tage in the circumstances. Indeed the lease deed in the case of Shakti Estate clearly talks of an intention of "develop ment and exploitation of the lands"	 words which cannot be merely confined to the cultivation of commercial crops thereon. In the face of such a declared purpose	 it is of no relevance whether the exploitation and development was under the terms of a lease deed or a purchase deed and the dis tinction made by the High Court between the two would appear immaterial. The extent of the lands acquired or leased out is so vast that the clearance has to be done in stages and the sale of forest trees extends over several years. Indeed	 it is bound to be a 414 recurring feature even after the plantation starts working as there will always be a certain number of trees retained in the plantation as shade trees and the like. The nature of the task undertaken by the assessee is really one in the nature of a venture to carry out sustained	 systematic and organised activities in the nature of business. These activ ities do not merely cover the running of a plantation. They commence right from the beginning when the assessee went in for the land with a view to developing it. They fully in tended	 as a first stage in the business which they intended to start	 to exploit the trees standing on the land to the maximum advantage. Moreover	 they did not merely sell the forest trees haphazardly. They took steps to exploit them in a commercial manner. When the trees yielded timber	 the assessee not only had them sawn and cut to sizes but even converted them into sleepers and sold them. They reduced a part of the jungle growth to charcoal and sold the same. Taken all together	 one is left in no doubt that when the assessees went in for a purchase or lease of the forest for starting a plantation they also knowingly let themselves in for engaging in a trade in the forest produce. The fact that the assessees are business entities	 the size of the tract developed	 the extent and value of the trees standing on the land	 the inevitability of the jungles having to be cleared and the standing trees disposed of before commercial crops could be grown	 the manner in which the forest trees were disposed of are all	 we think	 insignia that mark out the entire set of activities as a concern in the nature of trade. It is true that	 in the area of income tax law	 it has been held that no adventure in the nature of trade can be spelt out where all that a person does amounts to a mere realisation of his capital assets. It has been held thus that an owner of a huge estate who does not want to retain it any longer cannot be taxed on the surplus accruing to him on the sale of his capital assets even though he might carry out the realisation to best advantage in a commercial manner such as by forming a company	 developing the lands	 plotting them out	 advertising them for sale	 waiting for a favour able market and selling them over a period of several years. But this line of cases is of no help in the context of the facts of the present case and in the view we have taken above of the assessees transactions. Here the assessees did not merely realise the value of a capital asset belonging to them. They went in for the acquisition of an asset fully realising its potentialities for exploitation not merely as a plantation but also	 incidentally	 by disposing of the existing growth on the land. It seems impossible to say that they did not intend to do this also while going in for the acquisition. If one purchases an asset with a view to turn it to account in such manner	 we 415 think	 one is certainly carrying out an adventure in the nature of trade. Moreover	 we have also to give full effect to the defi nitions in the statute we are concerned with. The definition of a "business" also includes "any transaction in connection with or incidental to or ancillary" to a trade and thus	 even on the assessees own arguments	 these activities were incidental and ancillary to the business which the assessee was carrying on or definitely intended to carry on. It is also immaterial	 on this definition	 that the assessees may not have had a "motive of making a profit or gain" on these sales though on the facts	 it is clear that such motive must have existed and	 in any event could not be ruled out. The reference to a "casual" dealer in the second definition also renders it immaterial that the assessees may not have in tended to be regular dealers in sleepers	 timber	 firewood or charcoal but that this was something casual or incidental to the acquisition and exploitation of a forest for running a plantation. Before concluding	 we may refer to the decisions cited before us. The decisions of the High Court in the present cases and in Kuttirayin 's case (supra) support the assesses contention but	 for reasons given above	 we are unable to accept them as correct. The decision of the Madras High Court in L.N. Plantation Co. vs State	 [1981] 47 STC 210 supports the department 's contention and we approve of the same. In Tamil Nadu Trading Co. vs State	 [1981] 52 STC 7 the Madras High Court was dealing with a case where the assessee was found to be a dealer in timber. But	 in the course of their judgment	 the Court made the following observations which support the case of the department: "Even if it were to be assumed	 without ac cepting	 for the sake of argument	 that the assessee purchased the land for the purpose of coffee plantation	 the sale of timber and firewood fall under "any transaction" in connection with or incidental or ancillary to the business of coffee plantation and would therefore	 fail within the definition of "business" under section 2(d) of the Act. " We agree. There decisions of this Court were also referred to by counsel. State vs Burmah Shell	 [1973] 31 STC 426 and Dis trict Controller of Stores vs Assistant Commercial Tax Officer	 [1976] 37 STC 423 were cases where an assessee	 carrying on a business	 had to dispose of unserviceable or useless material and such disposals were held taxable 416 as "business" sales	 the transactions being incidental or ancillary to the principal business carried on by the asses see. The disposals effected by the Shakti Estate whose plantation business had started in full swing will certainly fall squarely within the principle of these decisions. But	 as we have discussed above	 in our view	 even the sales effected before the plantation started yielding results would be covered by the definitions as the venture undertak en by the assessee has to be considered as an integral whole and there can be no doubt that the sale of the forest pro duce was part of the activities in the contemplation of the assessees right from the beginning. As against the above decisions	 reliance was placed	 on behalf of the assessees	 on Deputy Commissioner vs Palampa dam Plantation	 [1969] 24 STC 231 where	 it is said	 it was held that an assessee could not be held taxable as a dealer on the sale of trees of spontaneous growth in a plantation. But that decision clearly turned on the specific language of the definition of "dealer" contained in section 2(viii)(e) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act	 1963	 and does not lay down any general proposition as contended for on behalf of the assessees. For the reasons discussed above	 we allow the appeals and set aside the order of the High Court and Tribunal in these cases. In the result	 the turnovers in dispute in the two cases before the High Court will stand included in the assessees turnover and the assessments modified accordingly. We	 however	 make no order regarding costs. N.V.K. Appeals allowed.

The respondent in each of the appeals is the assessee. It was a firm of 10 individuals. They acquired a reserve forest	 by a lease which entitled them to enjoy the usufruct of the forest by its exploitation. The partnership deed provided that the firm will carry on the development and exploitation of lands. The acquisition was effected with a view to raise a coffee and cardamom plantation thereon. For doing this	 the assessee had to clear a portion of the forest and in the process fell the unwanted trees standing thereon as natural growth. The cut trees were sold by the assessee in the form of firewood as well as in the form of cut sizes of timber as well as sleepers. Some of the growth was also converted into charcoal and the resultant charcoal sold. The firm had been functioning for the past 7 years and had been paying sales tax on its sale of firewood	 timber and sleepers. But for the first time in the assessment year 1968 69	 it put forward a claim that the above turnover was not assessable in its hands. The assessing officer and the first appellate authori ties held that the turnover in question to be taxable. But the Tribunal reversed this decision	 and held that the turnover was not liable for assessment to sales tax. The High Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the State. It held that it was a case of a lease. It did not involve any sale of trees. Merely because the trees were sawn to sizes	 would not by itself make out a sale. The suggestion that the sizing of trees into timber of their conversion into sleepers could make a difference was not accepted by the High Court	 which following the decision of the Kerala High Court in Kuttiravin & Co. vs State of Kera la	 [1976] 38 STC 282 affirmed the Tribunal 's order. 409 The State appealed to this Court. Allowing the appeals and setting aside the order of the High Court and Tribunal	 the Court	 HELD: l(a) The fact that the assessees are business entities	 the size of the tract developed	 the extent and value of the trees standing on the land	 the inevitability of the jungles having to be cleared and the standing trees disposed of before commercial crops would be grown	 the manner in which the forest trees were disposed of	 are all insignia that mark out the entire set of activities as a concern in the nature of trade. [414D E] l(b) In the area of income tax law	 it has been held that no adventure in the nature of trade can be spelt out where all that a person does a mounts to a mere realisation of his capital assets. [414E F] l(c) The assessees in the instant case	 did not merely realise the value of a capital asset belonging to them. They went in for the acquisition of an asset fully realising its potentialities for exploitation not merely as a plantation but also	 incidentally	 by disposing of the existing growth on the land. [414G H] l(d) If one purchases an asset with a view to turn it to account in such manner	 one is certainly carrying out an adventure in the nature of trade. [414H; 415A] 2(a) The definition of 'business ' in the T.N. General Sales Tax Act	 1959	 includes 'any transaction in connection with or incidental to or ancillary ' to a trade. The activi ties carried on by the assessee were incidental and ancil lary to the business which the assessee was carrying on or definitely intended to carry on. It is also immaterial	 on this definition	 that the assessee may not have had a 'm otive of making a profit or gain ' on these sales	 though on the facts	 it is clear that such motive must have existed and	 in any event	 could not be ruled out. [415B C] 2(b) Even the sales effected before the plantation started yielding results would be covered by the definition	 as the venture undertaken by the assessee has to be consid ered as an integral whole and there can be no doubt that the sale of the forest produce was part of activities in the contemplation of the assessees right from the beginning. [416B] 410 Kuttiravin & Co. vs State	 [1976] 38 STC 282	 over ruled. L.N. Plantation Co. vs State	 [1981] 47 STC 210; Tamil Nadu Trading Co. vs State	 [1981] 52 STC 7	 approved. Deputy Commissioner vs Shree Shamungam Estates	 [1979] 43 STC 226 Mad. reversed State vs Surmah Shell	 [1973] 31 STC 426; District Controller of Stores vs Assistant Commercial Tax Officer	 [1976] 37 STC 423 referred to	 Deputy Commis sioner vs Palampadam Plantation	 [1969] 24 STC 231	 distin guished.