9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (12) TMI 294X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rm carrying on the business of merchants and commission agents at Turuvekere in Tumkur district. The firm filed its returns for the relevant assessment years disclosing the turnover in copra and also in coconut. In respect of the turnover relating to copra, it claimed exemption as its turnover related to inter-State sales. The same was granted in regard to that turnover. It had collected tax for the year 1978 in a sum of Rs. 2,222.29, for the year 1979 in a sum of Rs. 3,790.72 and for the year 1980, Rs. 4,467.03. The assessment was concluded accepting the return. Thereafter, the Commercial Tax Officer, Tiptur, by his notice dated October 13, 1981, as at annexure B, called upon the petitioner to show cause why for the year ending December 31 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Vigilance) by his notice dated May 7, 1984, relating to all the three years invoking his jurisdiction under section 22-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act suo motu proceeded to hold that the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Bangalore Division, was in error in construing the sale by the appellant-firm to be the first sale which should be treated as a sale made subsequent to the purchase made by the appellant-firm itself and as such it could not have collected sales tax from its purchasers in Bangalore, despite the explanation offered by the appellantfirm, that it has only acted as a commission agent. 4.. Neither the appellant nor the department had produced material before him to examin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave been subjected to tax at the purchase point in the hands of the purchaser. That there was a sale between the purchaser and the commission agent, there was no material either before the assessing authority or any other authority under the Act. Therefore, the learned Government Pleader was unable to take an emphatic stand as to whether there was an earlier sale in favour of the appellant-firm. In that view of the matter, the assessee-firm could be only an agent of a registered dealer in Bangalore in effecting a purchase and as such when the goods were remitted to the principal purchaser, i.e., the buyer in Bangalore, it was bound to be first purchase of the coconuts liable to tax and as such recoup the same from the principal purchaser in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommission agent under the Regulation Act in terms of the definition of "commission agent" in that Act which is clause (8) of section 2 of the Regulation Act. It reads: "(8) 'commission agent' means a person who on behalf of his principal and in consideration of a commission or percentage upon the amount involved in each transaction keeps in his custody the goods of his principal and sells the same and holds himself liable to deliver it to the buyer and to make payment of its price to his principal." The firm will be acting as intermediary for the sale of the commodity, namely, coconuts on behalf of the growers and the purchasers and effect purchase in that behalf and as such collects sales tax from the buyers at the first purchase point. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
