9911796707
TMI Blog1952 (8) TMI 21X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the order cannot be questioned in any civil or criminal court, it is clear that if the assessment is found to be not one made under the Act, there is no bar in Section 22 of the Act prohibiting civil or criminal courts from considering the correctness of the order as that section refers only to an assessment made under the Act. The first point that arises for consideration in this case is whether the assessment made in respect of the dealings of a commission agent can be said to be one made under the Act. It will be noticed that under Sec- tion 2 of the Sales Tax Act "assessee" means a person by whom sales tax is payable, a "dealer" means any person who carries on business of buying or selling goods and "sales" means every transfer of p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bench and the question was decided in the case reported in Kandula Radhakrishna Rao v. Province of Madras(1). As observed in the Full Bench case: "On the facts found in The Public Prosecutor v. Narasimha Reddy(2) and the Government of Madras v. Veerabhadrappa(3), there can be no doubt whatever that the merchants in those cases do not fall within the definition of 'dealer'. They themselves neither sold nor bought the goods. They simply brought the seller and the buyer together and received a brokerage or commission by way of remuneration for their trouble." The comment made by the learned Chief Justice of the Madras High Court in the Full Bench case referred to above with respect to the deci- sion in Government of Madras v. Veerabhadrappa( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es brought to them for sale from villages and pay the amount realised, after deducting the commission due to them. There may be other commission agents who sell articles entrusted to them for sale, long after the entrustment as if they belong to them and without disclosing to the buyer that he is not the owner. The point for consideration is whether persons of that kind could be said to be dealers. (1) [1952] 3 S.T.C. 121; A.I.R. 1952 Mad. 718. (2) [1948] 1 S.T.C. 167; A.I.R. 1948 Mad. 102. (3) [1950] 1 S.T.C. 245; I.L.R. 1951 Mad. 257. The learned Chief Justice proceeds to examine the views of Satyanarayana Rao, J., that no commission agent could be said to be a dealer as defined in the Sales Tax Act and observes as follows: "Satyanarayana ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the agent of these persons. In the case of an agent who carries on business professedly as an agent of another then it is really the principal who can be deemed to be carrying on the business and the Explanation (2) refers to such a case. The learned Judge then refers to the definition of turnover and again makes the assumption that to constitute the turnover of the agent he must buy or sell the goods for himself. Dealing with the definition of 'sale' as a transfer of property in goods the learned Judge draws the implication that the property in the goods at the time of the sale vested in the person who sells and by reason of the sale, the purchaser obtains a transfer of the property in the goods from the seller. If the learned Judge meant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... call them- selves agents and call the remuneration they get commission to avoid sales tax. Persons calling themselves commission agents may be selling articles which they have brought. These are no doubt liable to pay sales tax being not really commission agents. When a proper case arises the question may need careful consideration. In this case, however, the petitioner's case is that vegetables brought to him by owners are sold by him for them as their agent and that he gets only the commission. Such a case is one in which it could be said that the commission agent sells the articles as agent of particular person. He is more or less a broker and he merely brings the vendor and vendee together and helps the sales. There is and can be no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riappa v. Government of Mysore(1), Venkatchala Chetty v. Government of Mysore(2) and Rama Iyer v. Government of Mysore(3). It is sufficient for the purpose of this case to give the following extract from the Commentary on the Indian Income-tax Act by A.C. Sampath Iyengar under Section 67 of the Indian Income-tax Act, which contains a provision similar to the one now under consideration: "The right to challenge in a court of law arises only where the Income-tax authority has no jurisdiction to assess on the undisputed facts, or on the facts as found by it, or as assumed by it to exist. That is to say if on certain facts the authority should hold it has jurisdiction in law and if that 'view of the law' should be erroneous, the civil court w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
