1962 (4) TMI 83 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Authority to Buy
2. Agent's Liability under Section 18 of the Act
3. Exemption from Tax under Section 9 of the Act
4. Number of Assessments

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Authority to Buy:
The first issue concerns whether the petitioner was the agent of the non-resident buyers with authority to buy as found by the Tribunal. The Tribunal's finding was based on cheettus or memos signed by the buyers after purchases were completed. However, these memos were not sufficient to confer authority to buy. The Tribunal's reliance on these memos was deemed inconclusive, as the transactions and course of business at Kokkalai market held greater evidentiary value. The Tribunal's finding that the petitioner was an agent for buying was thus set aside due to an error of law.

2. Agent's Liability under Section 18 of the Act:
The next issue was whether the petitioner could still be regarded as an agent under Section 18 of the Act, even without authority to buy. Section 18 states that the agent of a non-resident shall be deemed to be the dealer. The section does not limit its operation to a buying or selling agent. The agent must reside in the State and be concerned in the business of the non-resident. Acts such as paying or receiving the price, storing, preserving, sorting, packing, or transporting the goods can make an agent concerned in the business. On the facts, the petitioner negotiated purchases, paid the price, settled accounts, and arranged for the drying, packing, and transport of goods on behalf of the buyers. Thus, he was considered an agent concerned in the business of the non-resident buyers, attracting Section 18 of the Act.

3. Exemption from Tax under Section 9 of the Act:
The petitioner held a license under Section 9 and claimed exemption from tax for transactions during the period ending 30th September 1955. Section 9 allows exemption if the amounts for which the goods were sold are included in the turnover of the principals. The petitioner provided vouchers and Adakkapattika books as evidence. However, the department contended that these were insufficient to show actual inclusion in the principals' turnover. The Tribunal's acceptance of this evidence was overruled. The petitioner failed to prove that the amounts were included in the principals' turnover, and thus the claim for exemption could not be sustained.

4. Number of Assessments:
The petitioner argued that there should have been as many assessments as there were principals. This point was not raised in the revision memorandum or before the Tribunal. The Government Pleader objected, noting that agents often preferred joint assessments for convenience. The court declined to consider this point, deeming it not open for consideration at this stage.

Conclusion:
The order of the Tribunal was vacated, and the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was restored. T.R.C. Nos. 90 and 91 of 1960 were dismissed with costs, while T.R.C. No. 109 of 1960 was allowed to the extent indicated, with no order as to costs.