9911796707
TMI Blog1963 (8) TMI 35X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e principals on whose behalf the petitioner effected sales did not obtain licence under section 6 of the Act as their turnover did not exceed the limit of Rs. 7,500. For the year in question, the Commercial Tax Officer, Davanagere, determined the petitioner's assessable turnover at Rs. 4,39,251 and levied on the petitioner a licence fee of Rs. 660 under section 6 of the Act. The petitioner's appeal in this regard was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore. His revision petition to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore, was also not successful. Hence, he has come up to this Court praying that we may be pleased to quash the order of assessment made on him, as according to him, no tax is leviable on him ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ansaction but the burden of proving that the tax in respect of the transaction has been paid by the agent shall be on such principal." (Underlining* is ours). The second proviso is not necessary for our present purpose. From the above proviso, it is clear that when an assessment is made on the agent under the proviso, it is an assessment made for and on behalf of the principal and that in respect of "the transactions" namely, "the transactions" referred to in the main part of section 11. This can only happen if the principal is liable to pay tax. Quite clearly, if the principal cannot be taxed in respect of "the transactions" his agent also cannot be taxed in respect of the same. Therefore, we have to see whether the principals could have b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r section 5 in respect of his transactions, he cannot be held liable to pay the licence fee under section 6(2), which provision merely provides for payment of tax at a lower rate. We are clear in our mind that the principals of the petitioner were not liable to pay tax or licence fee in respect of the transactions with which we are concerned in this case and, therefore, the petitioner is also not liable to pay tax or licence fee in respect of the same. The fact that the petitioner is also a dealer as defined in section 2(1)(m) of the Act is wholly irrelevant. So long as be conforms to the requirements of section 11, his liability is that prescribed by the Act. A licence under section 6 would be necessary only in the case of a dealer whose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
