Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1981 (2) TMI 213

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as well as a commission agent. For the assessment period commencing from 1st April, 1971, to 31st March, 1972, he filed his returns. As far as the purchases and sales effected by him as a trader, the assessment has been made and that is not the subject-matter of controversy. The assessee had acted as a commission agent in respect of known principals who were producers and the turnover of commission sales during the said period came to Rs. 2,64,901.36. The assessee claimed exemption from tax on the said turnover on the ground that he had acted as selling agent on behalf of the agriculturist-principals who are exempted from tax in view of the exception incorporated below section 2(1)(k) of the Act. On the ground that the assessee had not pro .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the appellate authority proceeded to state that notice was issued to the petitioner but he failed to appear before the assessing authority and the papers also did not disclose that he had requested for grant of time. He further held that there was no material evidence in support of the stand of the assessee that he had acted as agent of the agriculturist-principals. 4.. Aggrieved by the order of the first appellate authority, the petitioner preferred a second appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The same two grounds urged before the first appellate authority were also urged before the Tribunal. As regards the first ground, the Tribunal also proceeded to state that no material had been produced to decide the issue as to whether the prin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ons imposed in the licence, a commission agent could act only on behalf of the producers who were agriculturists and this fact had not been taken into account by the authorities. He also submitted that the account books produced by the petitioner also showed the names of persons for whom the petitioner had acted as commission agent. In support of the second contention, the learned counsel submitted that the books of account produced as also the booklets produced by him, which contained the names of several principals, themselves indicated that the turnover of each of those principals was below Rs. 25,000. 6.. In our view, the first contention urged for the petitioner that as a commission agent acting as a marketing functionary under the p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ing committee. Therefore, it was open for the petitioner to produce such evidence as was available on the record of the marketing committee to prove that the principals on whose behalf the petitioner conducted the sales were agriculturists and producers. On the facts and circumstances of this case, we consider that the petitioner should have been given an opportunity to adduce evidence in support of his first contention. 7. Similarly, as regards the second contention urged for the petitioner also, it was open for the petitioner to prove that the turnover of the principals on whose behalf he acted as commission agent did not exceed Rs. 25,000. In this behalf it may be pointed out that it is not sufficient for the petitioner to prove that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 8.. In our view, the Deputy Commissioner was in error in not permitting and considering the first contention urged for the petitioner particularly having regard to the provisions of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act and, similarly, the Tribunal was also in error in not considering the said contention on merits. We are also satisfied that as regards both the contentions the assessee had not been given sufficient time by the Commercial Tax Officer to substantiate his claim for exemption. 9.. For the reasons aforesaid, we make the following order: (i) the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in S.T.A. No. 253 of 1976 dated 25th August, 1977, the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeal .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates