# MADRAS v. YOUNG MEN'S INDIAN ASSOCIATION (REG.) MADRAS &: ORS

- **Citation:** [1970] 3 S.C.R. 680
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1970-02-12
- **Case number:** Civil Appeals Nos. 1724 to 1727 of 1967
- **Bench:** M. Hidayatullah, C. Shah, K. S. Hegde, A. N. Grover, Ray, I. D. Dua
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/madras-v-young-men-s-indian-association-reg-madras-ors-5070
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

B
Madras General S<les Tax Act, 1959, s. 2(g) Exp. I & S 2(n) Exp, 1MenJbers'
c:1~,b-S11pply of 1efrcs/1111entS to ine1nbers and their guestsC
Whether, sales tax /eviable.
The respondents are members' clubs. They supply refreshments in
the form of 'food, snacks and beverages to their members or their guests
to be paid for by the members. The articles necessary for this purpose
are purchased by the clubs in the market out of club funds which consisted of the subscription of the members. The preparations are made within
the club premises and are supplied to members at fixed prices.
On the
D
question whether the clubs are "dealers"
liable to sales tax under
the
Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959,
HELD : (Per Full Court) As no transaction of sale was
involved
there could be no levy of .sales tax under the provisions of the Act.
(Per Hidayatullah, C. J. Hcgde, Grover, Ray and Dua, JJ .) The State
Legislature is only compe.tent to legislate on taxes on sale or purchase of
goods under Entry 54, List II of the 7th Schedule to the Constitution.
lf there is no transfer of property from one to anl.>ther there is no sale
which would be exigible to tax. in •pite of the definition of 'sale'
in
s. 2(n) read with Exp. I of the Act. [686 G]
In proprietary clubs where some of the shar·~holders are not members
or some of the members are not shareholders. the .members are not owners
of, nor interested in, the property of the olubs.
Unlike proprietary clubs
the case of a members' club is analogous to that of an agent investing
his own monies for preparing things for the consumption of the principal
and later recouping himself for the ex:pen~es incurred. Therefore. in the
present case, even though the· clubs arc distinct legal entities they were
only acting as agents for members in the matter of supply of various preparations to them and no sale would be involved as the. element of transfer would be completely absent. [685 A-B, 686 HJ
Cos111opo/itan Club, Madras v. District Co1111nert.:ial Tax Officer, Tripllcane (1952) I M.L.J. 401; Dep11ty Conunercial Tax Officer
TripU'cane
Dil'ision. Madras v. Cos111opolitan Club, l.L.R. [1955] Mad.
10-1-~. GraU
v. Ev<1ns. [1882] 8 Q.B.D. 37J. Trebanog Working Men's Club and lnsli·
fllti! Ltd. v. Macdonald [1940] I A.E.L.R. 454, Bengal Nr.gp11r Cotton
Ji,fills ('/uh, Rajnandangaon v. Sales Tax Officer Raip11r & Anr. 8 S.T.C.
781. Ce11111ry C/11h & Anr. v. State of My.wre. 16 S.T.C. 38. Deputy
Commercial Tax Officer v. Enfiend India Ltd. [1968] 2 S.C.R. 421, and
Inland Revenue
Co111n1issioners v. Westleigh Estate Co. Lki.
Sanze v.
So11th Behar Railway Co. Ltd. [1924] I K.B. 390, referred to.
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
C.T.O, v. YOUNG MEN'S ASSOCIATION (Grover, J.)
681
(Per Shah, J. concurring) : The analogy of cases decided under the
Licensing Act in the United Kingdom concerning the supply by clubs of
alcoholic drinks to their members is not appropriate.
\.Vhether refreshments, beverages and other articles supplied by members' club fdr consideration, to its members, are in law sold depends upon the circumstancesin which the transaction takes place.
In each case the liability to tax of
the transaction will depend upon its strictly legal form.
If an incorporated members' club supplies its property to its members at a fixed tariff
the transaction would readily be deemed to be one for sale, even if the
transaction is-on a non-profit basis: such a transaction would be liable to
sales tax.
Where, ho\.\'ever, the club is merely acting on behalf of the
members to make available to them refreshments, beverages and other articles, the, transaction will not be regarded as a sale, for the club is the
agency through \vhich the members have ·arranged that the refreshments,
beverages and other articles should be made available.
The test in each
case is whether the club transfers property . belonging to it for a price or
the club acts as an agent for making available property belonging to its
members. t687 G, 688 Bl
State of Madr

## Text

680
JOINT COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, HARBOUR DIV. II,
A
MADRAS
v.
YOUNG MEN'S INDIAN ASSOCIATION (REG.) MADRAS &:
ORS.
February 12, 1970
[M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J., J, C. SHAH, K. S. HEGDE, A. N. GROVER,
A. N, RAY AND I. D. DUA, JJ.]
B
Madras General S<les Tax Act, 1959, s. 2(g) Exp. I & S 2(n) Exp, 1MenJbers'
c:1~,b-S11pply of 1efrcs/1111entS to ine1nbers and their guestsC
Whether, sales tax /eviable.
The respondents are members' clubs. They supply refreshments in
the form of 'food, snacks and beverages to their members or their guests
to be paid for by the members. The articles necessary for this purpose
are purchased by the clubs in the market out of club funds which consisted of the subscription of the members. The preparations are made within
the club premises and are supplied to members at fixed prices.
On the
D
question whether the clubs are "dealers"
liable to sales tax under
the
Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959,
HELD : (Per Full Court) As no transaction of sale was
involved
there could be no levy of .sales tax under the provisions of the Act.
(Per Hidayatullah, C. J. Hcgde, Grover, Ray and Dua, JJ .) The State
Legislature is only compe.tent to legislate on taxes on sale or purchase of
goods under Entry 54, List II of the 7th Schedule to the Constitution.
lf there is no transfer of property from one to anl.>ther there is no sale
which would be exigible to tax. in •pite of the definition of 'sale'
in
s. 2(n) read with Exp. I of the Act. [686 G]
In proprietary clubs where some of the shar·~holders are not members
or some of the members are not shareholders. the .members are not owners
of, nor interested in, the property of the olubs.
Unlike proprietary clubs
the case of a members' club is analogous to that of an agent investing
his own monies for preparing things for the consumption of the principal
and later recouping himself for the ex:pen~es incurred. Therefore. in the
present case, even though the· clubs arc distinct legal entities they were
only acting as agents for members in the matter of supply of various preparations to them and no sale would be involved as the. element of transfer would be completely absent. [685 A-B, 686 HJ
Cos111opo/itan Club, Madras v. District Co1111nert.:ial Tax Officer, Tripllcane (1952) I M.L.J. 401; Dep11ty Conunercial Tax Officer
TripU'cane
Dil'ision. Madras v. Cos111opolitan Club, l.L.R. [1955] Mad.
10-1-~. GraU
v. Ev<1ns. [1882] 8 Q.B.D. 37J. Trebanog Working Men's Club and lnsli·
fllti! Ltd. v. Macdonald [1940] I A.E.L.R. 454, Bengal Nr.gp11r Cotton
Ji,fills ('/uh, Rajnandangaon v. Sales Tax Officer Raip11r & Anr. 8 S.T.C.
781. Ce11111ry C/11h & Anr. v. State of My.wre. 16 S.T.C. 38. Deputy
Commercial Tax Officer v. Enfiend India Ltd. [1968] 2 S.C.R. 421, and
Inland Revenue
Co111n1issioners v. Westleigh Estate Co. Lki.
Sanze v.
So11th Behar Railway Co. Ltd. [1924] I K.B. 390, referred to.
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
C.T.O, v. YOUNG MEN'S ASSOCIATION (Grover, J.)
681
(Per Shah, J. concurring) : The analogy of cases decided under the
Licensing Act in the United Kingdom concerning the supply by clubs of
alcoholic drinks to their members is not appropriate.
\.Vhether refreshments, beverages and other articles supplied by members' club fdr consideration, to its members, are in law sold depends upon the circumstancesin which the transaction takes place.
In each case the liability to tax of
the transaction will depend upon its strictly legal form.
If an incorporated members' club supplies its property to its members at a fixed tariff
the transaction would readily be deemed to be one for sale, even if the
transaction is-on a non-profit basis: such a transaction would be liable to
sales tax.
Where, ho\.\'ever, the club is merely acting on behalf of the
members to make available to them refreshments, beverages and other articles, the, transaction will not be regarded as a sale, for the club is the
agency through \vhich the members have ·arranged that the refreshments,
beverages and other articles should be made available.
The test in each
case is whether the club transfers property . belonging to it for a price or
the club acts as an agent for making available property belonging to its
members. t687 G, 688 Bl
State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley & Co. Ltd. [1959] S.C.R. 379,
Duke of West Minster v. Inland Revenue Co1n1nissioner, 19 T.C. 490,
Bank of Chettinad Ltd. v. Com'missioner of Income-tax, Madras. L.R. 67
I.A. 394, Commissioner of Income-tax,
Andhra Pradesh v. Motors &
General Stores (P) Ltd., 66 J.T.R. 692 S.C. and Commissioner of 1"co1itetax Gujarat v. B. M. Kharwar, 72 J.T.R. 603 S.C., referred to.
·
In the present case on the findings recorded, the respondents \".Ire not
transferring property belongin.g to them but were merely acting as agents
for and on behalf of the members and hence, the transactions \Vere not
sales and could not therefore be subject to sales tax under the Act. [688 DJ
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 1724
to 1727 of 1967.
Appeals from the judgments and orders dated November 23,
1962 and November 4, 1963 of the Madtas High Court in Writ
Petitions Nos. 129, 130. and 181 of 1960 and Writ Appeal No.
275 of 1963.
M. C. Chagla and A. V. Rangam, for the appellants (in all the
appeals).
D. Narsaraju and R. Gopalakrishnan, for the respondents (in
C.As. Nos.1724, 1725 and 1727 of 1967).
P. Ram Reddy, P. Parameswara Rao and A. V. V. Nair, for
the respondent (in S.A. No. 1726 of 1967).
The Judgment of M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J., K. s. HEGDE,
A. N. GROVER,
A. N. RAY and I. D. DuA, was delivered by
GROVER, J. · J. C. SHAH gave a separate opinion.
Grover, J. These appeals .by certificate are directed against a
common judgme.nt of the Madras High Court in petitions filed
under Art. 226 of the Constitution by the Cosmopolitan Club,
Madras, the Young Men's Indian Association, Madras and the
Lawley Institute Ootacamund challenging the proceedings relating
to their assessment to sales tax under the Madras General Sales
682
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1970] 3 S.C.R.
Tax Act, 1959, hereinafter called the "Act", for supplying food,
A
snacks, beverages and other articles to their members or their
guests. It was held by the High Court that each of these clubs
could not be regarded as a "dealer" within the meaning of s. 2(g)
read with Explanation I of the Act nor was any "sale" involved
in the aforesaid activity of the club within the meaning of s. 2(n)
read with Explanation I of the Act.
B
The Cosmopolitan Club, Madras, is a social recreation club
which was started originally in the year 1873 as an unincorporated
association. In 1934 it was registered under s. 26 of the Indian
Companies Act 1913 as a non-profit earning institution. Its objects, as disclosed in the memorandum of association, are mainly
to promote and facilitate social intercourse, discussion amongst its
members etc. The articles of association provide that the members for the time being only constitute the club. It maintains an
establishment for preparing and supplying refreshment to its members. It has been found by the High Court and has not been disputed that the articles necessary for the aforesaid purpose are purchased by the club in the market and the preparations are made
within its premises at the direction of a committee. The preparations are supplied to the members at such prices as are fixed by
the committee.
A member is allowed to bring guests with him
but if any article of food is consumed by the guest it is the member who has to pay for the same.
The Young Men's Indian Association is a society registered
under the Societies' Registratio~ Act 1860. It has, for its objects,
the improvement of the moral and physical standards etc. of the
students. The association provides certain facilities in the shape
of a library with a reading room apart from residential and recreational facilities. There is a mess together with a canteen serving
the needs of the members. Any member can bring a guest but the
duration of his stay in the hostel or of enjoying the benefit of the
preparations or bever'!JleS is limited and restricted by the rules.
It is the member who has to pay the charges for any articles consumed by his guest. The employees of the association purchase
the various articles required for supplying the refreshments etc.
and the cost and the expenses incurred therefor inclusive of the
salaries of cooks, servers and others are totalled up and divided
among the members participating in the me;s. No profit is made
by the association in pr.oviding these amenities to its members.
These facts as found in the judgment of the High Court arc not
disputed.
The Lawley Institute came into existence by a deed of trust
dated September 15, 1911 entered into between the Maharaja of
Bibbli and the Collector of Nilgiris and others. The management
of the Institute vests absolutely in the board of trustees.
It is
c
D
E
F
G
H
.•
•
A
B
c
C.T.O. v. YOUNG MEN'S ASSOCIATION (Grover, J.)
, 683
intended to serve its members only and no person other than a
member is entitled to participate in the amenities provided by the
Institute. The supplying of refreshments and meals to members
constitute one of such amenities.
These facts are altogether uncontroverted.
It appears that in the State of Madras levy of sales tax was
first made in 1939.
The statute as it stood then contained the
definition of "dealer'' in s. 2(b).
A dealer was defined as "any
person who carried on any business of buying, or selling goods"
with the following Explanation :
"a cooperative society, a club, a firm or any association which sells goods to its members is a dealer within the meaning of this clause".
The Cosmopolitan Club, Madras, which had been pa3ing tax since
1939 filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution which
was disposed of by Mack J,, in Cosmopolitan Club, Madras v.
D . District Commercial Tax Officer, Trip/icane ('). According to
the learned Judge the supply of refreshments in a members' club
purchased out of the club funds and composed of members' subscription was not a transfer of property from the club as such to
a member nor did the club do any trade or business in purchasing
from outside the requirements of members and supplying the same
E
to them at a fixed charge. The levy of sales tax on such supply
of refreshments was hekl to be illegal.
A division bench to whom
an appeal was taken confirmed the abovejudgment (Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Triplicane Division, Madras v. The Cosmopolitan Club(').
The definition of "dealer" in s. 2(g) of the
Act is in the following terms :
F
"dealer" means any person who carried on the busiG
H
ness 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)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
................. · ...
....................
....................
....................
. Explanation-I.
A society including a cooperative
society, club or firm or an association which, whether
or not in the course of business, buys, sells or distributes
goods from or to its members for cash or for deferred
(I) [1952] I M.L.J. 401.
(2) l.L.R. (1955] Mad. 1042.
684
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1970] 3 S.C.R.
payment or for commission, remuneration or other valuable consideration, shall be deemed to be a dealer for
the purpose o~ this Act;
Explanation II. ............. "
The definition of sale as given in s. 2(n) reads: ·
"sale" with all its grammatical variations and cognate expressions means every transfer of the property
in goods,by one person to another in the course of business for cash or for deferred payment or other valuable
consideration ................... , ... "
Explanation I. "The transfer of property involved in
the supply or distribution of goods by a society (including a cooperative society) club, firm or any association
to its members, for cash, 'or for deferred payment, or
other valuable consideration,
whether or not in the
course of business shall be deemed to be a sale for the
purpose of this Act".
"Turnover" is defined to mean :
"the aggregate amount for which goods are bought
or sold or supplied or distributed by a dealer, either
directly or through another on his own account or on
account of others whether for cash or for deferred payment or for other valuable consideration ........... "
It is common ground that for the levy of sales tax there must
be a sale of refreshments, beverages and other preparations by
the tlub to its members. If there is no transfer of property involved in the supply or distribution of goods by a club it would
not fall within Explanation I contained in the definition of sale
in s. 2(n) nor can the club be regarded as a dealer within s. 2(g)
read with Explanation I. '
The law in England has always been that members' clubs to
which category the clubs in the present case belong cannot be
made si;bject to the provisions of the Licensing Acts concerning
sale because the members are joint owners of all the club property Including the excisable liquor.
The supply of liquor to a
member at a fixed prjce by the clnb cannot be regarded to be a
sale. If, however, liquor is supplied to and paid for by a person
who is not a bona fide member of the club or his duly authorised
agent there would be a sale. With regard to incorporated clubs
a distinction has been drawn.
Where such a club has all the
characteristics of a members' club consistent with its incorporation,
that is to say, where every member is a shareholder and every
''Shareholder is a member, no licence need be taken out if liquor
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
C.T.O. v. YOUNG MEN'S ASSOCIATION (Grover, J.)
68:>
is supplied only to the members. If. some of the shareholders are
nut members or some of the members are not shareholders that
would be the case of a proprietary club and would involve sale.
Proprietary clubs stand on a different footing. The members are
not owners of or interested in the property of the club. The supply to them of food or liquor though at a fixed tariff is a sale.
(See Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd Ed., Vol. 5, pp. 280-281.)
The principle laid down in Graff v. Evans(')
had throughout
been followed. In that case Field J., put it thus :
"I think the true construction of the rules is that the
members were the joint owners of the general property
in all the goods of the club, and that the trustees were
their agents with respect to the general property in the
goods".
The difficulty felt in the legal property ordinarily vesting in the
trustees of the members' club or in the incorporated body was
surmounted by invoking the theory of agency i.e. the club or the
trustees acting as agents of the members.
According to Lord
Hewart (L.C.J.} in Trebanog Working Men's Club and Institute
Ltd. v. Macdonald('), once it was conceded that a members'
club did not necessarily require a license to serve its members with
,intoxicating liquor it was difficult to draw any distinction between
the various legal entities which might be entrusted with the duty
of holding the property on behalf of members, be it an individual
or a body of trustees or a company formed for the purpose so
long as the real interest in the liquor remained in the members of
the club. What was essential was that the holding of the property
by the agent or trustee must be a holding for and on behalf of
and not a holding antagonistic to members of the club.
In the various cases which came to be decided by the High
Courts in India the view which had prevailed in England was
accepted and applied. We may notice the deCisions of the Madhya
Pradesh High Court in Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills Club, Rajnandangaon v. Sales Tax Officer Raipur & Another(') and of the
Mysore High Court in Century Club & Another v. The State of
Mysore & Anr.(4). In the former it was held that the supply to
the member of a member>' club registered under s. 26 of the
Indian Companies Act 1913 of refreshments purchased out of
club funds which consisted of members' subscription was not a
transfer of property from the club as such to a member and the
club was not liable to sales tax under the C.Pc & Barar Sales Tax
Act 1947 in respect of such supplies of refreshment. The prin·
ciple adverted to in Trebanog Working Men's Club(') was adopted
(I) [1882] 8 Q. B. D. 373.
(2) [1940] I A.E.L.R. 454.
(3) 8 S. T. C. 781.
(4) 16 S. T. C. 38.
<i86
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1970] 3 S.C.R.
and it was said that if the agent or a trustee supplied goods to the
members such supplies would not amount to a transaction of sale.
The Mysore court expressed the same view that a purely member's club which makes purchases through a Secretary or manager and supplies the requirements to members at a fixed rate did
not in law sell these goods to the members.
On behalf of the appellant reliance has been placed on a decision of this court in Deputy Commercial Tax Officer & Am'. v.
Enfiend India Ltd. ( 1). In that case the Explanation to s. 2(g) was
found to be intra vires and within the competence of the State legislature. The judgment proceeded on the footing that when a cooperative society supplied refreshments to its members for a price
the following four constituent elements of sale were present : (1)
parties competent to contract; (2) mutual consent; (3) thing, the
absolute or general property in which is transferred from the seller
to the buyer and ( 4) price in money paid or promised. The mere
fact that the society supplied the refreshments to its members alone
and did not make any profit was not considered sufficient to establish that the society was acting only as an agent of its members.
As a registered society was a body corporate it could not be assumed that the property which it held was the property of which
its members were owners. The English decisions were distinguished on the ground that the courts in those cases were dealillg with
matters of quasi criminal nature.
It appears that in England even in taxation laws the position
of a members' club though incorporated has been recognised to. be
quite different.
In Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Westleigh
Estate Co. Ltd.('); Same v. South Behar Railway Co. Ltd. and
Same v. Eccentric Club Pollock M.R. dealing with the case of
the Eccentric Club pointed out that the members' club was only
structurally a company and it did not carry on trade or business
so as to attract the Corporation Profits Tax.
The essential question, in the present case, is whether the
supply of the various preparations by each club to its members
involved a transaction of sale within the meaning of the Sale of
Goods Act 1930. The State Legislature being competent to legislate only under Entry 54, List II of the 7th Schedule to the Constitution the expression "sale of goods" bears the same meaning
which it has in the aforesaid Act. Thus in spite of the definition
contained in s. 2 ( n) read with Explanation I of the Act if there is
no transfer of property from one to another there is no sale which
would be exigible to tax. If the club even though a distinct legal
entity is only acting as an agent for its members in the matter of
supply of various preparations to them no sale would be involved
(I) [1968) 2 S.C.R. 421.
(2) [1924] l J(. B. 390.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
ff
C.T.O. v. YOUNG MEN'S ASSOCIATION (Grover, J.)
687
as the element of transfer would be completely absent. This position has been rightly accepted even in the previous decision of
this Court.
The final conclusion of the High Court in the judgment under
appeal was that the case of each club was analogous to that of an
agent or mandatory investing his own monies for preparing things
for consumption of the principal, and later recouping himself for
the expenses incurred. Once this conclusion on the facts relating
to each club was reached it was unnecessary for the High Court
to have expressed any view with regard to the vires of the Explanations to s. 2(g) and 2(n) of the Act. As no transaction of sale was
involved there could be no levy of tax under the provisions of the
Act on the supply of refreshments and preparations by each one
of the clubs to its members.
The appeals must fail and are dismissed but there will be no
order as to costs.
Shah, J.
Where general property in goods belonging to a
person is under a contract transferred to another for a price paid
or promised, the transaction is a sale. The State Legislature has
under the Constitution power to legislate under Entry 54 List II
in respect of taxes on sale or purchase of goods and the expression
"sale" has the same meaning it bears in the Sale of Goods Act,
1930 : see State c1 Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley & Co. (Madras)
Ltd. ( 1 ). A transaction which is not of the nature of sale within the
meaning of the Sale of Goods Act, cannot, therefore, be subjected
to tax under a law enacted in exercise of power under Entry 54
List II.
Whether refreshments, beverages and other articles supplied
by a Member's Club for consideration to its members are in law
sold depends upon the circumstances in which the transaction
takes place. In each case the liability to tax of the transaction
will depend upon its strictly legal form. If an incorporated members' club supplies its property to its members at a fixed tariff, the
transaction would readily be deemed to be one for sale, even if
the transaction is on a non-profit basis; such a transaction would
be liable to sales tax. Where, however, the club is merely.acting
on behalf of the melllbers to make available to them refreshments,
beverages and other articles, the transaction will not be regarded
as a ~ale, for the club is the agency tllrough which the members
have arranged that the refreshments, beverages and other articles
should be made available. The test in each case is whether the
(I) [1959} S.C.R. 379.
'
688
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1970] 3 S.C.R.
club transfers property belonging to it for a price or the club acts
A
as an agent for making available property belonging to its
members.
In my· judgment, the analogy of the cases. decided under the
Licensing Act in the United Kingdom concerning the supply by
clubs o.f alcoholic drinks to their members is not appropriate. In
8
a criminal trial or a quasi-criminal proceeding, the Court is entitled to consider the substance of the transaction and determine
the liability of the offender. But in a taxing statute the strict legal
position as disclosed by the form and not the substance of. the
transaction is determinative of its taxability : see Duke of West
Minister v. Inland Revenue Commissioners('); Ba11k of Chittinad
Minster v. Inland Revenue Commissioners('); Bank of Chittinad
C
Income-tax, Andhra Pradesh
v.
Motors & Geneml Stores(P)
Ltd.('); and Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat v.
B. M.
Khanvar(').
It appears on the tindings recorded by the High Court that the
clubs or associations sought to be rendered liable in these appeals
D
were not transferring property b~longing to them but were merely
acting as agents for and on behalf of the members. They were
not selling goods but were rendering a service to their members.
I agree therefore that the appeals must fail.
Y.P.
(I) 19 T.C. 490. 519.
(2) L. R. 67 I. A. 394.
Appeals dismissed.
(3) 66 l.T.R. 692 S.C.
(4) 72 I.T.R. 603 S.C.