Dealer status in sales tax turns on control over goods and a prima facie turnover showing that shifts the burden to the assessee.

A person who merely brings buyer and seller together and earns commission is not a dealer, but where he receives goods without the owner, stores them, fixes prices, sells them, collects payment and accounts to the owners, those transactions amount to sales by him and satisfy the definition of dealer. In quasi-criminal tax penalty proceedings, the prosecution must first establish a prima facie turnover; once assessment records and transaction chittas showed turnover above the statutory threshold, the burden shifted to the assessee to rebut it, and failure to do so sustained liability. The conviction was maintained, though the sentence was reduced.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was a "dealer" under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 in respect of transactions where he either merely acted as a broker or, on some occasions, controlled and sold goods himself; and whether the prosecution had established a prima facie turnover of not less than Rs. 10,000 so as to require submission of the "A" return and sustain the conviction.

Analysis: The evidence showed two kinds of transactions. In some, the petitioner merely brought the seller and purchaser together and earned commission, in which case he would not be a dealer. In others, goods were sent to him without the owner accompanying them, he stored the goods, fixed prices, effected sales, received payment, and rendered accounts to the owners. Those transactions amounted to sales by him and brought him within the definition of dealer under Section 2(b). The proceedings for recovery of tax penalties were treated as quasi-criminal, not purely criminal, so the prosecution was required to establish a prima facie case of liability, after which the burden shifted to the assessee. The departmental assessment records and the transactions evidenced by the chittas furnished prima facie proof of turnover, and the petitioner failed to rebut that material. Since the unrebutted prima facie turnover exceeded the statutory threshold, the obligation to file the return arose and non-compliance attracted liability.

Conclusion: The petitioner was liable to be treated as a dealer for the relevant transactions and was bound to submit the return. The conviction was sustained, but the sentence was reduced from fine of Rs. 200 to fine of Rs. 50, with simple imprisonment in default reduced to two weeks.

---