Tarzan Hosiery (P) Ltd. Vs. their Workmen

.....of the act, and, the transactions of sale were not liable to be taxed under the act. the appellant was not selling the goods for profit but was merely disposing them of by way of realisation of capital. [786 b-d] commissioner of taxes v. british australian wool realisation association, [1931].a.c. 224 (p.c.) applied. state of andhra pradesh v. m/s. abdul bakshi & bros., [1964] 7 s.c.r. 664; 15 s.t.c. 644 (s.c.) and state of gujarat ' v. raipur manufacturing co. ltd., [1967] 1 s.c.r. 618; 19 s.t.c. 1 (s.c.), referred to. per shah j. (dissenting) : it could be inferred from the totality of circumstances that the appellant was not merely realising capital, but was carrying on business, and was therefore a dealer within the meaning of s. 2(c) of the act and liable to he assessed to sales-tax. [780 a, h] it cannot be said that because the government of india received the equipment free, of cost it could not set up a business to dispose of that equipment. there was an organised course of activity which was systematic and with the set purpose of making profit and the tests of volume. frequency, continuity and system generally applied for deciding whether there was an intention to carry on business were also satisfied. [779 g-h; 780 f-g] nirain swadeshi mills v. commissioner of excess profit tax, 26 i.t.r. 765 (s.c.) and state of andhra pradesh v. abdul bakshi & bros., [19641 7 s.c.r. 664; 15 s.t.c. 644 (s.c.) referred to. commissioner of taxes v. british australian wool realisation association ltd. [1931] a. c. 224 (p.c.) explained and distinguished. - 2. after having heard counsel for the appellant at some length, and on certain suggestions made by the court, the parties have come to a settlement aided by the statesman like advice of counsel on both sides......at the validity of an award dated january 23, 1970 made by the industrial tribunal (ii) at lucknow according to the management it had two factories one at calcutta and the other at kanpur. the subject-matter of this appeal relates to the kanpur factory which had on its muster rolls twenty eight workmen. this factory was closed according to the agement's case, after payment of closure compensation in terms of the provisions of the industrial disputes act. seventeen workmen received the compensation but eleven did not. out of this latter category, one is no more and the remaining ten disputed the case of closure and contended that it was a make believe. the state government made a reference of the dispute which thus arose between the workmen and the management to the industrial tribunal. the award of the tribunal was to the effect that there was no bona fide closure of the factory and that the workmen were entitled to be reinstated. against these two directions, the appeal has been filed.2. after having heard counsel for the appellant at some length, and on certain suggestions made by the court, the parties have come to a settlement aided by the statesman like advice of counsel on both sides. we appreciate the services of counsel in this behalf and proceed to record the terms of the settlement.3. the appellant undertakes to deposit into court within one month from to-day rs. 20.000/- on the basis of rs. 2,000/- per worker. this will be in addition to the payment directed by this court at the time the special leave was granted. which counsel for the appellant says, has already been paid. on deposit this sum will be withdrawn by the ten workers whose names are as under :1 ram chandra : 2. madan gopal; 3. bishamber dass 4. ujagar singh : 5. tara singh : 6. babu lal : 7. ram niwas : 8. ram sumer singh; 9. ganga ram : 10. gauri shankar.4. the appellant agrees that if the ten workers individually or as a co-operative society manufacture knitted goods or knitted.....