1958 (4) TMI 73 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether the appellants fall within the definition of dealer given in Explanation 3 to section 2(c) of the Act? Held that - The goods in question were directly supplied by the Mills to the customers, whether they were supplied in pursuance of the orders placed by the appellants with the Mills or were supplied in pursuance of orders directly placed by the customers with them. The invoices were all made out in the names of the customers and the relevant documents were negotiated by the Mills with the customers through the Banks. The customers released those documents from the Banks on payment of the relevant drafts and the sale price of the goods was thus received by the Mills through those Banks. At no time whatever was there any handling of the goods or the receipt of the sale price thereof by the appellants in regard to the goods in question and under those circumstances the sale price thereof could not be included in the gross turnover of the appellants. If that was the true position, the appellants were not liable to sales tax in respect of the disputed transactions, even though, perchance, they could be included within the expanded definition of dealer in the Explanation 3 to section 2(c) of the Act-a contention which we have already negatived. In regard to the disputed transactions which were of the total value of ₹ 6,21,369-10-3, the appellants were not at all liable to pay sales tax thereupon and the first respondent was clearly in error in assessing the same to sales tax. The appeal will accordingly be allowed and the assessment order made by the first respondent on January 15, 1955, will be set aside. The sales tax of ₹ 27,816 assessed by the first respondent on the appellants, if paid, will be refunded and the appellants will get from the first respondent the costs of this appeal as also the costs incurred by them in contesting the proceedings before the first respondent. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Liability of the appellants to pay sales tax on transactions executed by the Kanpur Woollen Mills.
2. Interpretation of the terms "dealer" and "turnover" under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act (Ben. VI of 1941).
3. Adherence to principles of natural justice in the assessment procedure.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Liability of the appellants to pay sales tax on transactions executed by the Kanpur Woollen Mills:
The appellants were assessed to sales tax by the Commercial Tax Officer for transactions valued at Rs. 6,21,369-10-3, with a tax amounting to Rs. 27,816. The appellants contended that they acted merely as commission agents for Kanpur Woollen Mills and were not liable for sales tax on transactions where they did not handle goods or receive sale proceeds directly. The Commercial Tax Officer, influenced by the Assistant Commissioner (C.S.), deemed the appellants liable based on Explanation 3 of section 2(c) of the Act, which was later found to be incorrect.

2. Interpretation of the terms "dealer" and "turnover" under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act (Ben. VI of 1941):
The definition of "dealer" under section 2(c) and "turnover" under section 2(i) of the Act was crucial. Explanation 2 of section 2(c) defines a dealer as a commission agent with authority to sell goods. However, the appellants did not have such authority as per their agreement with the Mills. Explanation 3 of section 2(c) deems an agent in West Bengal of an out-of-state dealer as a dealer if they carry on the business of selling goods in West Bengal. The court found that the appellants did not carry on such business; they merely forwarded orders to Kanpur, where the Mills executed them. Therefore, the appellants did not fit the definition of a "dealer" liable for sales tax on these transactions.

3. Adherence to principles of natural justice in the assessment procedure:
The assessment procedure was found to be flawed and contrary to principles of natural justice. The Commercial Tax Officer did not exercise his own judgment but followed the instructions of the Assistant Commissioner (C.S.) without giving the appellants an opportunity to respond to the points raised against them. This lack of independent assessment and failure to provide the appellants a fair hearing undermined the confidence in the impartial administration of the sales tax department.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the appellants were not liable to pay sales tax on the disputed transactions. The sales were made by the Kanpur Woollen Mills, and the appellants merely acted as commission agents without handling the goods or receiving sale proceeds. The assessment order by the Commercial Tax Officer was set aside, and the appellants were entitled to a refund of the sales tax paid and costs incurred in the appeal and proceedings. The appeal was allowed.