Auction sales tax liability and mandamus require demand and refusal before writ relief is maintainable.

An auctioneer selling goods by auction for commission is treated as a dealer under the Bengal Finance Sales Tax Act, 1941, because the taxable event is the sale transaction and not ownership of the goods; dominion and possession, together with completion of the sale through auction, make ownership immaterial, so tax liability and registration obligations arise. A writ of mandamus is not maintainable unless the petition alleges a demand for justice and its refusal; absent that averment, the writ application fails as defective.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether an auctioneer carrying on business of selling goods by auction is a dealer under the Bengal Finance Sales Tax Act, 1941; (ii) whether a writ of mandamus was maintainable in the absence of an allegation of demand and refusal of justice.

Issue (i): whether an auctioneer carrying on business of selling goods by auction is a dealer under the Bengal Finance Sales Tax Act, 1941.

Analysis: The definition of dealer was examined in the context of the scheme of the Act, including the charging and registration provisions and the relevant rules. The business carried on by the petitioners consisted in selling goods by auction for commission. The decisive consideration was that the auctioneer had dominion and possession of the goods and that the sale was completed through the auction process, so that the transaction of sale, and not ownership of the goods, attracted tax. Ownership of the goods was therefore held to be immaterial.

Conclusion: The petitioners were held to be dealers under Section 2(c) of the Act, and the liability to tax and compliance obligations were upheld.

Issue (ii): whether a writ of mandamus was maintainable in the absence of an allegation of demand and refusal of justice.

Analysis: The maintainability of the application was tested on the settled requirement that a petition seeking mandamus must show a demand for justice and its refusal. The petition contained no such allegation. On that basis, the defect was treated as fatal to the writ application.

Conclusion: The writ application was not maintainable and the petition failed.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the tax authorities' requisition and assessment proceedings was rejected, and the petitioners' writ remedy was refused.

Ratio Decidendi: An auctioneer who carries on the business of selling goods by auction is a dealer for sales tax purposes, and a writ of mandamus is not maintainable without an allegation of demand and refusal of justice.

---