TaxTMI Login
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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the plaintiffs were "dealers" within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act. (ii) Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to exemption from tax under Section 8 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act despite non-compliance with the licence conditions.
Issue (i): Whether the plaintiffs were "dealers" within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act.
Analysis: The evidence showed that the customers did not place genuine orders with the plaintiffs, the alleged order book was unreliable, and the correspondence necessary to support the claim of agency was withheld. The transactions were treated by the plaintiffs as their own purchases from Bombay merchants, with the goods later passed on to customers and commission retained as profit. On those facts, the plaintiffs were not acting as agents for identified customers in the relevant sense.
Conclusion: The plaintiffs were dealers within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, against the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to exemption from tax under Section 8 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act despite non-compliance with the licence conditions.
Analysis: Section 8 permits exemption only where the licensed commission agent buys or sells on behalf of known principals and complies with the terms and conditions of the licence. One of those conditions, under rule 12 of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules, required separate accounts for each class of articles. The plaintiffs did not maintain such accounts. The failure to comply with a licence condition disentitled them to the statutory exemption.
Conclusion: The plaintiffs were not entitled to exemption under Section 8 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, against the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The liability to sales tax was upheld because the transactions were treated as the plaintiffs' own dealings and the statutory conditions for exemption were not satisfied.
Ratio Decidendi: A person who carries on transactions on his own account is a dealer for sales tax purposes, and exemption granted to licensed commission agents is available only upon strict compliance with the licence conditions.
TaxTMI 
