1990 (9) TMI 324 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment of turnover claimed as commission agent.
2. Exemption claimed by the assessee.
3. Decision of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes.
4. Revision by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes.
5. Challenge in Sales Tax Appeal Nos. 11 and 12 of 1980.
6. Remand by the Court.
7. Material produced after remand.
8. Nature of transactions and first purchaser status.
9. Correctness of exemption.
10. Dismissal of the appeal.

Analysis:

1. The assessee was assessed for the years 1974-75 and 1975-76 by the Commercial Tax Officer, claiming exemption as a commission agent for turnover involving groundnuts. However, upon verification, it was found that the assessee had purchased from unregistered dealers and then sold to registered dealers, claiming a commission. The assessing authority held the assessee as the first purchaser, bringing the turnover to tax.

2. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes initially partially exempted the turnover for 1974-75 and fully exempted it for 1975-76. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes later revised this decision, leading to a challenge in Sales Tax Appeal Nos. 11 and 12 of 1980. The Court remanded the matter due to the refusal of an adjournment preventing the assessee from presenting material.

3. After remand, the material produced by the assessee failed to establish that he did not purchase the goods from unregistered dealers. The Court reiterated that the assessee, by paying full consideration to the dealers and then selling to registered dealers, was the first purchaser in those transactions, not a commission agent.

4. The Court emphasized that the mere form of the bill of sale or accounting method could not change the nature of the transactions. As the assessee had paid for the goods himself, he was rightly considered the first purchaser, leading to the correct decision by the Commissioner to set aside the exemption granted by the Deputy Commissioner.

5. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, affirming the decision that the assessee was not eligible for exemption as claimed. Additionally, another appeal was dismissed for similar reasons as the first appeal.

In conclusion, the Court upheld the decision that the assessee was the first purchaser in the transactions, denying the exemption claimed and dismissing the appeal.