Commission agent surcharge liability turns on aggregate turnover, not each principal's turnover, under the Kerala tax scheme.

Commission agents are treated as dealers under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, and their turnover must be computed on aggregate dealings for surcharge purposes. Section 3 of the Kerala Surcharge on Taxes Act applies only as a percentage to the sales tax already payable by the dealer; it does not create a separate turnover basis or allow exclusion of sales made for principals whose individual turnover would not attract surcharge. Agency principles cannot override this statutory scheme, and rule 9(k) protects principals from double taxation rather than reducing the agent's surcharge liability. The surcharge was therefore correctly levied on the assessee's aggregate turnover, and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a commission agent liable to sales tax on its aggregate turnover under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 can, for the purpose of surcharge under the Kerala Surcharge on Taxes Act, 1957, exclude sales made on behalf of principals whose individual turnover would not attract surcharge, and whether the general law of agency or rule 9(k) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules limits the surcharge levy.

Analysis: The relevant definitions in the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 treat a commission agent as a dealer and require turnover, taxable turnover and total turnover to be computed on the basis of the aggregate dealings of the dealer. Section 3 of the Kerala Surcharge on Taxes Act, 1957 does not create a fresh or separate turnover assessment for surcharge, but merely applies a prescribed percentage to the sales tax already determined as payable by the dealer for the year. There is therefore no statutory basis for splitting the commission agent's turnover by reference to the individual turnover or surcharge exposure of each principal. The general principle of agency cannot override the express statutory scheme, and rule 9(k) operates for the benefit of the principal against double taxation of sales tax, not for the agent to reduce its own surcharge liability. The plea based on hardship and article 19 was not entertained as a new factual contention.

Conclusion: The surcharge was rightly levied on the assessee's aggregate turnover, and the challenge based on agency principles and rule 9(k) failed.

---