Dealer status under sales tax law depends on factual findings; criminal courts cannot reopen a valid assessment.

A commission agent who merely connects buyer and seller is not ordinarily a dealer under the Sales Tax Act, but liability depends on the assessing authority's factual finding on the nature of the business. Where that authority, acting within jurisdiction, finds that the person is in fact a dealer, that finding governs tax liability unless challenged through the statutory remedies provided by the Act. The text also states that a criminal court cannot re-open such a jurisdictionally valid assessment or factual determination under the statutory bar, and the assessment therefore remained immune from challenge in the criminal proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a commission agent selling goods on behalf of owners was a dealer liable to sales tax under the Sales Tax Act; (ii) whether the assessment order could be challenged in a criminal court in view of the bar on questioning orders made under the Act.

Issue (i): whether a commission agent selling goods on behalf of owners was a dealer liable to sales tax under the Sales Tax Act.

Analysis: The definition of dealer, turnover, and sale under the Sales Tax Act was examined in the light of the nature of the petitioner's business. A commission agent who merely brings the vendor and purchaser together and earns commission does not ordinarily himself carry on business as a buyer or seller and is not a dealer. But where the assessing authority finds, on the facts, that the person is in fact a dealer in goods, that finding controls the liability under the Act. The distinction was drawn between a true commission agent and a person who only describes himself as one to avoid tax.

Conclusion: The petitioner, having been found by the assessing authority to be a dealer in vegetables, was held liable to sales tax.

Issue (ii): whether the assessment order could be challenged in a criminal court in view of the bar on questioning orders made under the Act.

Analysis: Section 22 of the Sales Tax Act bars challenges to orders made under the Act only when the assessment is made within jurisdiction under the Act. Where the authority has jurisdiction to decide whether a person is a dealer or a commission agent, its decision on that factual issue is final unless set aside in the manner provided by the Act. The petitioner had not pursued the statutory remedies available against the finding of the assessing authority. In such circumstances, the criminal court could not re-open the factual determination that he was a dealer.

Conclusion: The assessment was not open to challenge in the criminal proceedings and the conviction was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The revision failed because the petitioner's liability under the sales tax law was sustained on the assessing authority's finding that he was a dealer, and that finding could not be impeached in the criminal court.

Ratio Decidendi: A factual finding by the taxing authority, made within its jurisdiction, that a person is a dealer under the Sales Tax Act is final unless challenged through the statutory remedies, and a criminal court cannot re-examine that finding where the assessment is one made under the Act.

---