Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a broker, described as a del credere agent, who procures customers for the principal but does not receive possession or control of the goods, is a dealer within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Sales Tax Act and liable to registration.
Analysis: The petitioner's business was confined to introducing buyers and guaranteeing payment; the sales were made directly by the company to the consumers, and the property in the goods never vested in the petitioner. A del credere agent, in the strict mercantile sense, is a factor who sells goods in his possession and undertakes a contingent guarantee of the buyer's solvency. On the admitted facts, the petitioner had none of the incidents of a factor or mercantile agent and was only a broker who brought the parties together for direct sale. Since a broker does not carry on the business of selling goods on behalf of the principal in the sense required by the definition of dealer, the registration could not stand.
Conclusion: The petitioner was not a dealer within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Sales Tax Act and was not liable to registration; the impugned order treating it as a dealer was quashed, and cancellation of the registration certificate was directed.
Ratio Decidendi: A person who merely introduces buyers, secures payment, and neither takes possession of nor acquires title to the goods is a broker and not a dealer for sales tax purposes.