1954 (3) TMI 57

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ections 22(1)(a) and 22(1)(g) of the Bengal Finance Sales Tax Act of 1941 should not be quashed. As regards the proceedings under section 22(1)(a) of the Act it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that whatever business was carried on-whether in contravention of provisions of section 7(1) of the Act, or not-was carried on by the Calcutta Woollen Agency Ltd. and not by him personally. Sectio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uted and from the certi- fied copy of the list of shareholders in Form E that has been produced before us it appears that Rameswar Agarwalla holds only 5 shares. It may or may not be that he takes a leading part in the business but, in our opinion, neither he nor any of the other shareholders can be considered to be the "dealer". It is the company which is the dealer within the meaning of sections .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n this question. This point was not raised in the application on which the rule was issued. If there be no sanction the proceedings will fail; but at the present stage it is not possible for us to order quashing of the proceedings on that supposed ground. We accordingly quash the proceedings under section 22(1)(a) of the Bengal Finance Sales Tax Act of 1941, but discharge the Rule as regards the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X