9911796707
TMI Blog1950 (2) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ey also carry on independent business of their own. Under Section 8 of the Act they were granted licences permitting them to carry on commission business which is styled Dalali Agency in the judgment. Under the terms of the licence the plaintiffs are not liable to pay sales tax in respect of their commission businesses. There was no trouble till March, 1943, as no tax was imposed upon them by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer in respect of the commission business. In the years 1943-44, however, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer thought fit to impose upon the plaintiffs sales tax on the ground that they had violated the terms of the licence and were therefore disentitled to the exemption. The plaintiffs carried the matter in appeal to the Commercial Tax Officer and also in revision in the Board of Revenue but they were unsuccessful throughout. Hence these suits. The main ground on which the Commercial Tax Officer imposed sales tax was that the plaintiffs collected double commission in respect of the same transaction of sale both from the buyer as well as the seller and that the commission received from the purchaser was not entered in the seller's account. In addition to this, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ey are usually persons who purchase groundnuts to be sold again or to be used for expelling oil. From the accounts it is seen that most of the purchases were made by one T.G. Lakshmayya whose clerk has been examined as P.W. 6. T.G. Lakshmayya's accounts have been filed as Exhibits A-52 and A-53. After these prospective pur- chasers go to the shops the dalali merchants allow them to inspect the goods brought by the ryots. The different purchasers select their own bags. Thereafter the dalali merchants and the prospective buyers enter into a bargain about the prices. The ryot who is the principal seller would be consulted in the matter of fixation of prices and when the principal seller and the prospective buyer agree upon a definite price the sale by the ryot to the buyer is concluded. This would be done sometimes in the morning. Thereafter the buyer sends his clerk to the shop of the dalali merchant and in his presence and in the presence of the clerk of the dalali merchant and in the presence of the principal seller the groundnuts would be weighed by certain coolies who are called the chintalu coolies, the word "chintalu" meaning weighment. At the time of weighing the goods, entrie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat in the account of the seller maintained by the plaintiffs the commission paid by the purchaser has not been included. The learned District Munsif was satisfied on an examination of the entries in the books that the commission collected from the buyer was also entered in the account books and that the charge was unfounded. The commission was collected both from the seller and the buyer with the knowledge of the principals and when the principals concerned were known principals. He overruled the conten- tion of the defendant that certain items besides the commission such as the cooly charges were appropriated by the plaintiffs themselves. The cooly charges were collected from the buyer and not from the seller direct and were immediately paid to the cooly. The gumastha, dharma, sample rusum and receipt amounts were collected from the ryot from a long time and were the usage of the trade which was well known in Adoni and other places and therefore they were incidental on payment of the agreed commission and brokerage. The last of the objections was that some items were not utilised for the purpose for which they were intended. On this part of the case the learned District Munsif fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tiffs became dealers and carried on transactions as dealers in violation of the terms of their licence as commission agents they would not be liable to pay tax. It is not clear, however, from the judgment of the learned District Judge whether he finally takes the view that mere violation of the terms of the licence would constitute the plaintiffs dealers and therefore liable to pay tax as dealers if it is not otherwise proved that they bought or sold goods on their own account and not on behalf of known principals. He, however, accepts the view that the Government failed to establish that the plaintiffs were dealers in respect of any of the impugned transactions, i.e., in the sense that they were sellers and buyers themselves on their own behalf and not merely persons who acted on behalf of known principals. The learned District Judge was in entire agreement with the learned District Munsif in holding that there was no breach of any of the terms of the licence and that the tax imposed by the commercial tax authorities was not legal. The position, therefore, now is that most of the grounds on which the commercial tax authorities imposed the sales tax on the plaintiffs were unfound ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the business of buying or selling goods; Explanation (1).-A co-operative society, a club, a firm, or any association which sells goods to its members is a dealer within the meaning of this clause. Explanation (2).-The agent of a person resident outside the Pro- vince who carries on the business of buying or selling goods in the Province, shall be deemed to be the dealer in respect of such business for the purposes of this Act." "Turnover" is defined in Section 2(i) thus: "'Turnover' means the aggregate amount for which goods are either bought by or sold by a dealer, whether for cash or for deferred payment or other valuable consideration provided that the proceeds of the sale by a person of agricultural or horticultural produce grown by himself or grown on any land in which he has an interest whether as owner, usufructuary mortgagee, tenant or otherwise, shall be excluded from his turnover." There is an Explanation to this definition which contains three sub-clauses. Of these, sub-clause (iii) is relevant. It says: "Where for accommodating a particular customer, a dealer obtains goods from another dealer and immediately disposes of the same to the said customer, the sale in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le is that when the groundnuts are purchased by a dealer and sold subsequently he has to pay the turnover tax only on the cost price and not on the sale price. Under the rule-making powers conferred by Section 19 of the Act, Sales Tax Rules have been framed by the Government. These provide the method and the manner of issue of licences and also other Provisions. Part II of the Rules deals with the licences to be given under Sections 5 and 8. Under Rule 8, if the conditions of the licence were not observed, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer is empowered to cancel the licence. Rule 12 requires the dealers and agents to main- tain separate accounts in respect of their transactions also as commis- sion agents. The arguments before us covered a wider field, viz., the question whether a commission agent could ever be a "dealer" and liable to be assessed to tax on his turnover under Section 3 of the Act. The learned Advocate-General on behalf of the Government contended for a restricted and narrower interpretation of "agent" in order to justify the exemption under Section 8 of the Act, while Mr. Muthukrishna Aiyar, the learned advocate for the respondents, argued that the word "agent" s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ver of the principal-whether a seller principal or a buyer principal-and at the same time treating such turnover as the turnover of the agent also. The word "agent" according to him should be interpreted as applying only to a person who acts more or less, to use his own expression, as a "conduit pipe" in bringing together the seller and buyer in respect of goods. After the two are brought together the agent disappears from the scene. This argument excludes an agent who acts on behalf of a seller as well as an agent who acts on behalf of a buyer when he does not bring the seller and the buyer together. He may be acting on behalf of a disclosed principal or may be acting on behalf of an undisclosed principal. The tax is leviable under Section 3 on every dealer on his turnover. Rule 4 of the Turnover Rules contemplates two different schemes of taxation-a seller's scheme on the gross turnover of a dealer, i.e., the amounts for which goods are sold by him, and a purchaser's scheme on the gross turnover of a dealer, i.e., the amounts for which the goods are bought by him. The latter scheme is confined to certain goods which are enumerated in the rules. Therefore the turnover usually is t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ority of his principal. Under Section 27 of the Indian Sale of Goods Act it is enacted that where goods are sold by a person who is not the owner thereof and who does not sell them under the authority or with the consent of the owner the buyer acquires no better title to the goods than the seller had, unless the owner of the goods is, by his conduct, precluded from denying the seller's authority to sell. There is a proviso which states: "Provided that, where a mercantile agent is, with the consent of the owner, in possession of the goods or of a document of title to the goods, any sale made by him, when acting in the ordinary course of business of a mercantile agent, shall be as valid as if he were expressly authorised by the owner of the goods to make the same: provided that the buyer acts in good faith and has not at the time of the contract of sale notice that the seller has no authority to sell." If the agent has no title to the goods it is impossible for him to convey the title to the goods unless he is authorised by the principal to sell the goods. In the case of mercantile agents the possession of the goods or the document of title to the goods clothes him with authority t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e behalf the agent purports to act should not be a fictitious or non-existent principal so as to enable the agent to camouflage his transactions and escape taxation. The undis- closed principal is a person certainly known to the agent though not known to either the seller or the purchaser as the case may be. Proviso to Section 8 also requires that in order to claim the exemption in the case of sale the amounts for which the goods concerned are sold should be included in the turnover of the principal and in the case of purchase the cost price should be included in the turnover of the purchaser. This again indicates in my opinion that the object is that the tax should not be evaded by a person purporting to act as agent of an unknown or fictitious principal; but so long as the principal is known and is clearly indicated in the account so as to enable the Government to proceed to levy the tax on the turnover of such principal the agent is exempted from taxation. The object of Section 8 according to the learned Advocate-General is to fix liability in case where an agent acts on behalf of an undisclosed principal. According to him in such cases the transactions whether of sale or purcha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be as between himself and the principal. It is not a section dealing with the property in the goods. Merely because direct right of action is recognised on the basis of a contract entered into by him on behalf of an undisclosed principal it does not follow that the relationship between him and his principal was that of a vendor and purchaser or even that he acquires the title to the goods which he purchased on behalf of the principal or is clothed with a title to sell goods of his principal. The decision of the House of Lords above referred to is not, in my opinion, an authority for holding that the relationship between a principal and an agent when he buys goods on behalf of a foreign principal and sends them to him is that of really a vendor and purchaser. The plaintiff in that suit was a commission agent in Mauritius. The defendant was a resident of England. Two letters between the parties brought about a contract by which the commission agent, the plaintiff, was asked to supply 500 tons of sugar at a particular rate including freight and insurance. The contract gave discretion to the agent that the quantity may be 50 tons more or less and that he should despatch them if possib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods pass from the country producer to the commission merchant; and then, when the goods are shipped, from the commission merchant to his consignee. And the legal effect of the transaction bet- ween the commission merchant and the consignee, who has given him the order, is a contract of sale passing the property from the one to the other; and consequently the commission merchant is a vendor, and has the right of one as to stoppage in transitu." In the earlier part of the judgment it was pointed out by the learned Judge that it was common for the consignor to be an agent who does not bind himself absolutely to supply the goods but merely accepts an order by which he binds himself to use due diligence to fulfil the order. Of course he is bound to get the goods as cheap as he reasonably can. The contract is construed to be a contract by which a consignor agrees to procure goods at a particular price and below a certain rate and ships them to the person ordering the goods. At page 409 it is pointed out that in some respects it was a contract between the vendor and the vendee but that does not mean that it was not a contract between the principal and the agent. He observed, "My opinion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led to recover damages on the basis that the contract between the principal and agent was that of vendor and purchaser and that he was entitled to recover the difference between the price stipulated and the market price on the date of the breach as the market then went up. For the agent it was contended that it was only a contract between principal and agent and that he was liable to make good the actual loss suffered by the principal on account of the breach. The decision in Ireland v. Livingston (1871) L.R. 5 H.L. 395, and the observations of Blackburn, J., were relied on on behalf of the principal in support of the contention that the contract between the principal and the agent was one, of vendor and purchaser. Brett, M.R., pointed out in the course of his judgment at page 803. "The decision of the House of Lords considered the point only with reference to two matters; one with regard to the theory of passing the property in the goods and the other as to the power of stopping the goods in transitu, and as to those two matters he (Lord Blackburn) has said with reference to the first of them that if the foreign commission agent has purchased the goods which he was ordered to purc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to stoppage in transitu; but by the legal effect of the transaction he means the legal effect of an analogous contract to that of a contract of purchase and sale.........He says 'I would preface what I have to say by stating my opinion that the question is to be regarded as one between principal and agent though the plaintiffs might in some respects be looked upon as vendors to the defendants so as to give them a right of stoppage in transitu.' Therefore in such a case as the present there is in fact no contract of vendor and purchaser." I have abstracted these passages from the judgment of the Court of Appeal to show that the case in Ireland v. Livingston, (1871) L.R. 5 H.L. 395, is not an authority for holding that the commission agent is in the position of a vendor when he was asked to buy goods on behalf of a foreign principal. Pollock and Mulla in their Commentaries on the Indian Contract Act, 7th edn., at page 531, refer to Ireland v. Livingston (1871) L.R. 5 H.L. 395, and Cassaboglou v. Gibb and Others (1883) 11 Q.B.D. 797, and summarise the legal position as follows: "The legal relation between a merchant in one country and a commission agent in another is that of pri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty for the meaning of "sale" under the Sales Tax Act as there is a clear definition of the word in the Act itself. The view that a commission agent is not a dealer within the mean- ing of the Act was expressed by Justice Chandrasekhara Aiyar in Public Prosecutor v. Narasimha Reddi, (1947) 2 M.L.J. 220; p. 167 supra. Referring to the definition the learned Judge pointed out that the expression "business of buying or selling goods" in the Act No. IX of 1939, has reference only to one who buys or sells goods on his own be- half and that the Explanation 2 to sub-clause (b) of Section 2 supports that interpretation. He also pointed out in that judgment that the word "turnover" as defined in the Act could not be applied to the transac- tion of an agent who brings together a buyer and seller for brokerage and commission. There was nothing like a turnover so far as he was concerned. The contention that the enactment of Section 8 in the Act implies or indicates that he would otherwise be a dealer was also rejected. The learned judge also points out that if the commission agent gets a licence to sell he would save himself the risk of being called upon to pay the tax and become liable for p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Mr. justice Mack considered the Act particularly Section 8, in the Province of Madras v. Firm of Kanigolla Sivalakshminarayana, (1949) 1 M.L.J. 530; p. 223 supra. The actual decision in the case may be supported on the ground that the commission agent in that case made secret profits out of the transaction by purchasing the goods for a less amount and selling them at a higher price to the principal. He may, therefore, be deemed to have constituted himself thereby a dealer. But there are some observations of the learned judge in the course of his judgment with which I am unable to concur. Firstly, the learned Judge was of opinion that a strict gram- matical and etymological definition of the word "dealer" as defined under the Act would include "persons like the plaintiff in the present action even if they had merely acted as commission agents because either as agent for buying goods on behalf of a known principal or as selling agent on behalf of a known principal they should be deemed to be persons who carry on the business of buying or selling goods." (p. 225 supra). If, by this, is meant that even if the commission agent is not the owner of the goods, by reason of the sale on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sactions even though the goods dealt with are the same. In such a case they can invoke the exemption under Section 8 but not where both the transactions are simul- taneous as it were and the agent gets one commission for selling and another commission for purchasing." When the agent brings about the sale of the goods on behalf of a seller and at the same time arranges for the purchase of the same goods by a purchaser it would be difficult to see why the transactions should be split up and why any distinction should be made on the basis of the entry in the accounts, whether it is entered as two transactions or as one tran- saction. In either event, the agent is not the seller and is not the buyer. The turnover is not his turnover as goods did not belong to him at any moment. Assuming that the exemption under Section 8 is necessary in such a case, even then it is difficult to see why, even if the transactions are simultaneous, he should not escape under Section 8. In my opinion the fact of the matter is not whether the transactions are simultaneous or different but whether the agent has constituted himself a dealer by purchasing the goods on his own account or selling the goods on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vests in him for a moment may be within the purview of Section 8. For these reasons, I am of opinion that even apart from the licence the plaintiffs are not liable to tax under the Act as they are not "dealers" within the meaning of the Act. Before closing this judgment, I wish to observe that the learned District Munsiff has written a very clear and able judgment both on the facts and on the complicated and novel questions of law unaided by any precedent. The result is that the second appeals fail and are dismissed with costs. VISWANATHA SASTRI, J.-The respondents in these second ap- peals sued the appellant, the Provincial Government of Madras represent- ed by the Collector of Bellary, for a declaration that the assessment orders made by the Commercial Tax Officer levying sales tax upon them were illegal and void. The plaintiffs were merchants who carried on business on their own account and also acted as brokers or commis- sion agents for buyers and sellers of groundnuts in Adoni and thereby earned a commission and sundry other perquisites in connection with such sales and purchases. The plaintiffs had obtained licences under Section 8 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f creating a liability to tax not imposed by plain terms. Taxation cannot be imposed by analogy or by implication or by resort to some kind of cypres doctrine. If a lacuna or defect appears, the gap can be filled only by the Legislature and not by those responsible for the collection of revenue or by the Courts. The main question argued related to the liability of agents to pay sales tax on sales or purchases of goods effected by them on behalf of principals for a commission or remuneration paid or promised. Section 3 of the Act is the charging section which imposes a tax on "dealers" on their turnover. A "dealer" is defined in Section 2(b) as meaning any person who carries on the business of buying or selling goods. The contention of the appellant is that the definition is wide enough to include agents who buy or sell goods on behalf of their principals. I cannot agree. The business of buying and selling the goods is the business of the principal, the owner of the goods, who may buy or sell them directly or through agents. The agents may be in receipt of commission or a fixed remuneration but they have no interest in the business or its profit and loss. The business is that of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sident outside the Province who carried on the business of buying and selling goods in the Province "should be deemed to be a dealer". Where a person is deemed to be something, the only meaning possible is that whereas he is not in reality that something, the Act requires him to be treated as if he were. See Com- missioner of Income-tax v. Bombay Trust Corporation, (1930) L.R. 57 I.A. 49; I.L.R. 54 Bom. 216. If the argument of the learned Advocate- General is correct, this provision would have been quite unnecessary, and its language wholly inappropriate. The definition of "sale" in Sec- tion 2(h) of the Act refers to transfer of property in the goods by one person to another in the course of trade or business for cash or other consideration. The broker or commission agent who merely brings together the buyer and seller does not transfer the property in the goods. An agent for sale of goods has himself no property in the goods though he might effect a transfer of the property in the goods to the buyer if he had been authorised to sell by the owner of the goods. It is however the owner's title to and property in the goods that is trans- ferred by the agent. Explanation (1) to Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as in the case of other goods, is taken as the turnover of the dealer. The statutory indications are to the effect that an agent is not a "dealer" and the "turnover" on which tax is levied is the turn- over of the owner of the goods. The agent or servant who acts for another person is not treated as having a turnover on which he would be chargeable. This is in accordance with the ordinary principle of law embodied in Section 230 of the Contract Act that in the absence of a contract to that effect, an agent cannot personally enforce contracts entered into by him on behalf of his principal nor is he personally bound by them. It is argued for the appellant that there are other provisions in the Act and the Rules made thereunder having statutory force which bring agents within the net of taxation. At one stage of the argument it was stated by the Advocate-General that brokers who acted as "mere conduit pipes" without any further activity were outside the definition of "dealer" in Section 2(b). At another stage of the argument he con- ceded that persons acting as mere agents of named and existing princi- pals resident in the Province and buying and selling goods as agents without inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f their principals resident within the Province are "dealers" who are chargeable to sales tax unless they take out a licence under Section 8 and conform to the terms both of that section and of the licence issued thereunder. In my opinion neither the defini- tions in the Act nor the terms. of the charging section justify such a conclusion. A broker is an agent who, in the ordinary course of his business, is employed to make contracts for the purchase or sale of goods of which he is not entrusted with the possession or control. Usually he contracts in the name of the principal and arranges contracts of sale or purchase in such a way as to bind both the buyer and the seller. There may be other kinds of agents for the sale or purchase of goods on behalf of, and employed by, a principal. It is elementary that goods can be sold so as to transfer title to the buyer only by the owner of the goods or by a person acting under his authority or with his con- sent. In order to facilitate trade and commerce, a proviso to Sec- tion 27 of the Sale of Goods Act enacts an exception to this rule by providing that a mercantile agent who is entrusted by the owner with the possession of the goods or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the customer does not know who the principal is, does not affect this question. Where the agent is authorised to buy and/or sell goods on behalf of a principal, disclosed or undisclosed, the goods bought and sold are those of the principal. A personal right of the agent to enforce a contract for the sale of goods or his personal liability under such a contract, affects only the right of the agent to sue or his liability to be sued under the contract, but not the real nature of the transaction as a sale or purchase on behalf of the principal. Even a del credere agent who undertakes to indemnify his employer against loss arising from the failure of persons, with whom he contracts, to carry out their contracts for sale or purchase of goods, is still an agent and does not become a seller or buyer himself. The learned Advocate-General sought to differentiate between different types of agents according as they were brokers or commission agents, agents of principal for whom they acted statedly as agents ex- cluding any personal right or liability, agents who in addition to the liability of their principals came under a personal obligation to imple- ment the contracts of sale or pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and not to his unknown foreign correspondent, and the commission merchant has no authority to pledge the credit of his corres- pondent for them." The learned judge held that the property in the goods first passed from the country producer to the commission merchant and then when the goods were shipped, from the commission merchant to the consignee. The legal effect of the transaction between the commission merchant and the consignee who had given the order was held to be a contract of sale passing the property from the one to the other. These observations were made in connection with the commission merchant's right of stoppage in transit and must be understood subject to the qualifications laid down by the Court of Appeal in Cassaboglou v. Gibb, (1883) 11 Q.B.D. 797. Dealing with the position of a commis- sion agent in relation to his foreign consignee, the Court of Appeal definitely held that the relation between them was not that of a vendor and purchaser but mostly that of principal and agent. The commission agent was treated as a sort of quasi vendor. By shipping the goods to his principal, the foreign consignee, he appropriated the goods to the contract and the property in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods. We are not concerned with the etymological sense but with the statutory definition of 'dealer' in Section 2(b) of the Act which contains no reference to agents, either of known or unknown principals, but merely defines 'dealer' as a person who carries on the business of buying or selling goods. The definition does not point to the person who physi- cally handles or delivers the goods in the course of the buying and selling operations as the 'dealer'. The business contemplated is the business of the person who buys goods or whose goods are sold and he may conduct the business personally or through an agent. If he employs an agent, the business is still the business of the principal and not of the agent. The learned Judge, if I may say so with respect, has para- phrased the definition of 'dealer' in Section 2 (b) of the Act by import- ing into it the phraseology employed in Section 8. I am of the opinion that a commission agent or any other agent who buys and sells goods on behalf of his principal as a mere agent, was never caught in the net of taxation by Section 3 and therefore did not require to be set free by Section 8. Section 8 is not a charging section but an exempt- ing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... port his contention that an agent for sale would be a 'dealer' within Section 2(b) chargeable under Section 3 of the Act. If I enter a cloth shop and purchase dhoties and pay for them, I may deal only with the shop boy. He takes the price in cash and delivers the goods. I may not know who the owner of the goods is or the owner may never attend the shop. But I do know that the shop boy is not the owner of the goods though he has the owner's authority to sell and deliver the goods and collect the price. The goods are in the custody of the shop boy, he has authority to sell the goods, he sells and delivers the goods, and he takes the price. He is not in my opinion a 'dealer' as defined in Section 2(b) but is merely an agent of the dealer. The business is not that of the shop boy but of the owner of the goods which are sold by the shop boy. I fail to see what the belief of the purchaser as regards the position of the person actually selling and delivering the goods, whether he is the owner or an agent, has got to do with the determination of the question as to who is the 'dealer' within the Act. With due deference to the learned Judge, I am unable to accept his observations as an autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the purview of Explanation 3 to the definition of 'turnover' in Section 2 (1) of the Act. Whatever might have been the intention of the framers of the Act, there are no express words in the Act making agents who merely buy and sell goods, on behalf of their principals resident within the Province, 'dealers'. Such agents are, therefore, not chargeable to the tax under Section 3 of the Act. There is no need to invoke the provisions of Section 8 of the Act to exempt such agents from liability to sales tax. The reference to 'known principal' in Section 8 may mean an actually existing and identifiable principal as contrasted with a fictitious principal in whose name the business of buying and selling is carried on. Section 8 does not have the effect of making sales and purchases effected by an agent on behalf of undisclosed but real and existing principals, chargeable to tax on the footing that the agent is a 'dealer' with a 'turnover' of his own. In the view the respondents who acted as commission agents are not liable to pay sales tax in respect of the turnover of groundnuts, the sales and pur- chases whereof were brought about by them on behalf of the owners of the goods. It is true ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
