1968 (12) TMI 87 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the first proviso to section 11 regarding tax liability of a firm and its agents.
2. Determining the liability of the principal in a business carried out through agents.
3. Application of statutory provisions to assess tax liability on dealers and agents.

Analysis:
The High Court of Mysore heard a revision petition by the State Government challenging an order by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the assessment of turnover of a respondent-firm acting as commission agents in Mysore. The Tribunal accepted the firm's contention that the turnover related to business carried out through agents should not be taxed in the hands of the firm, holding the agents solely responsible for tax payment. The Tribunal relied on the first proviso to section 11, emphasizing the phrase "the agent shall be assessed," which, in their view, excluded the principal's liability. However, the Court found this interpretation flawed and overlooking relevant statutory provisions.

The Court clarified that a "dealer" under section 2(1)(k) includes a person conducting business "directly or otherwise," encompassing principals operating through agents. Section 5, the charging section, holds every dealer accountable for tax payment on their taxable turnover. The Court emphasized that the first proviso to section 11 does not exclusively assign tax liability to agents but rather provides an enabling provision making both agents and principals liable to pay tax. This is evident from the provision exempting the principal from further taxation if the agent has already paid the tax for a transaction. The Court highlighted that if principals were not liable when business is conducted through agents, the exemption in the proviso would be unnecessary.

Consequently, the Court allowed the revision petition, overturning the Tribunal's order. This decision reinstated the assessment order by the Commercial Tax Officer and the Deputy Commissioner. The Court concluded the judgment by stating that no costs were awarded in this matter.

In essence, the judgment clarified the tax liability of principals and agents in businesses conducted through agents, emphasizing that both parties can be held accountable under the relevant statutory provisions. The Court's decision corrected the Tribunal's misinterpretation of the proviso and reaffirmed the tax obligations of both principals and agents in such scenarios.