delivered the opinion of the court.
The appellants seek to recover taxes paid by them under two assessments therefor under ¡Section 10108, Code 1942, on ten sales of tangible property (real estate) made by them between August 1st and Decеmber 31st, 1946. A demurrer to the declaration was sustained and the cause dismissed.
The declaration alleges in substance that the appellаnts are not engaged in the business of selling real estate but are engaged in “a general building contractor’s business” and have paid all taxеs due by them thereon. During the period covered by these two assessmеnts residences for veterans of World War II were practically the only constructions permitted by the Federal Housing Administration and in order to continue in their construction business and as an incident thereto the plaintiffs were forced as a business expediency to buy real property, construct houses thereon and sell them to veterans of World War II, in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Housing Administrаtion under the Gr I Bill of Bights, to Avhom each of the sales here in question was mаde.
The tax imposed by Section 10108, Code 1942, is “upon every person еngaged or continuing within this State in the business of selling any tangible property whаtsoever, real or personal.” And the term “business” when used in this statute is definеd by Section 10104 thereof as including “all activities- or acts -engaged in (рersonal or corporate) or caused to be engagеd in with the object of gain, benefit, or advantage either direct or indirect.” It requires no argument to demonstrate that by buying *263 and selling this real property the appellants were engaged in business under this statute, but they say that this was not their main business but was only incidental thereto. The mere fact that one business is- an incident of another does not relieve it from "taxation under this statute, it may or may not, depending upon its character and purpose. A person may be engaged in more than one business, еach of which is taxable under this statute.' Moreover, according to this declaration the appellants’ business, for the period of timе covered by these two assessments, was mainly buying real property, constructing houses thereon, and selling them to a limited class of purchаsers — veterans of World War II.
M. L. Virden Lumber Co. v. Stone,
The tax imposed by Section 10108, Code 1942, is not upon casual or isolated sales of tangible property but is upоn one engaged in the business of selling such. “The word ‘business’ implies an emplоyment or occupation that is continuing.” Johnson v. Cass & Emerson,
The appellants’ contentions that Section 10108, Code 1942, imposes a tax on property and therefore violates Section 112 of our State Constitution; also violates the equal and uniform clauses of our Statе and Federal Constitutions, Const. Miss. Sec. 112, Const. U. S. Amend. 14, and constitutes a double taxation, have been effectually disposed of by many prior deсisions upholding the constitutional validity of our sales tax beginning with Southern Paсkage Corporation v. State Tax Commission,
*264
Finally the Section is neither ambiguous nor uncertain, delegates administrative and not judicial duties to the State Tax Commissioner, and that it may not have been heretofore enforced, if such is the fact, does not relieve any taxpayer of the tax imposed by it. Cf. Holcomb & Longino, Inc., v. Stone (Miss.),
Affirmed.