Brokerage in fish auctions without custody or title-transfer authority does not make the auctioneer a dealer under sales tax law.

Persons who merely call for bids and conduct auctions, without custody of the goods or authority to pass title, are brokers rather than commission agents. A broker only brings buyer and seller together, while a commission agent is entrusted with the goods and may transfer ownership so that the activity can amount to dealing in goods under the Madras General Sales Tax Act. On the facts found, the respondents only conducted the fish auction, received a small remuneration for that service, never handled the fish, and had no authority to transfer title. Their activity was therefore brokerage, not dealer activity, and they were not liable to sales tax or prosecution under Section 15(b).

---

---

Issues: Whether persons engaged only in calling for bids and concluding auctions of fish catches, without custody of the goods or authority to transfer title, are commission agents or brokers, and consequently liable as dealers to sales tax and prosecution under Section 15(b) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act.

Analysis: A broker is a mere negotiator who brings buyer and seller together, has no custody or possession of the goods, and no authority to pass property in them. A commission agent, by contrast, is entrusted with the goods and may transfer title in them, so that his business in selling goods can amount to the business of a dealer under the Act. On the facts found, the respondents only called out bids, conducted the auction, received a small remuneration for that service, never handled the fish, and had no authority to transfer ownership. Their functions therefore answered the description of brokerage and not commission agency or trading activity.

Conclusion: The respondents were not dealers liable to sales tax and had not committed an offence under Section 15(b) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act.

---