9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (7) TMI 104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the said vendors the petitioner allows them a commission of 50 per cent in case of the vendors going to the villages and 35 per cent in case of vendors selling within the town. These vendors have been treated by the assessing authority, appellate authority and the Tribunal as persons employed by the petitioner for selling the goods, their remuneration being the said commission. The assessing authority treated the entire sale proceeds got by the vendors as the turnover of the petitioner and brought it to charge. This was objected to by the petitioner. The petitioner contended that there was in fact a sale by him to the various vendors and that it Is the responsibility of those vendors to sell the same and while accounting for the value of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the goods and sold them at their risk. But this contention has not been substantiated by any acceptable material. The Tribunal finds that the vendors at the end of the day bring the sale proceeds along with the unsold goods and the accounts are settled excluding the value of the unsold goods. The fact that the petitioner takes back the unsold goods from the vendors would clearly show that there has been no sale by the petitioner and that he only entrusted the goods to the vendors for sale on commission basis. The commission of 50 per cent or 35 per cent, as the case may be, of the sale proceeds realised by the vendors from the consumers can only represent the amount which the vendors get for the services rendered by them in taking the g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s allowed to the actual consumers to whom the goods had been sold by the vendors on behalf of the petitioner. If there is no sale by the petitioner to the vendors outright, there is no question of payment of discount in respect of any particular sale. The amount of commission paid to street vendors by way of commission cannot be said to be a discount on the price paid by the buyer, the buyer in this case being the consumer himself. We are fortified in this view by the decision in Hyderabad Chemicals Fertilisers Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh[1968] 22 S.T.C. 298. , wherein it has been held that where a company sells its products through selling agents, commission paid to such agents cannot be deducted as a discount allowed to the buyer, as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
