Broker not dealer under sales tax law; licensing provision does not itself create tax liability.

A licensed market commission agent who only brings seller and buyer together, without authority to accept bids, conclude the bargain, receive sale proceeds, or deliver goods, is treated as a broker and not as a dealer under the Mysore Sales Tax Act. Tax liability depends on the substantive charging provision and the statutory definition of dealer, not on the mere holding or absence of a licence. Section 9 is a licensing and exemption provision and does not itself create a charging liability. The note states that a person who does not effect transfer of property in goods is outside dealer status for sales tax purposes.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a licensed market commission agent, who merely brings seller and buyer together without authority to conclude the bargain or deliver goods, is a dealer liable to tax under the Mysore Sales Tax Act. (ii) Whether Section 9 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act is a charging provision.

Issue (i): Whether a licensed market commission agent, who merely brings seller and buyer together without authority to conclude the bargain or deliver goods, is a dealer liable to tax under the Mysore Sales Tax Act.

Analysis: Liability under Section 3 turned on whether the assessee was a dealer, that is, a person carrying on the business of buying or selling goods. On the facts, the assessee had no authority to accept bids, fix terms, receive sale proceeds, or hand over the goods. His function was limited to facilitating contact between seller and buyer and earning brokerage. Such a person did not effect transfer of property in goods and did not answer the definition of dealer. The distinction between a commission agent with control over goods and a mere broker was material, and the assessee fell in the latter category.

Conclusion: The assessee was not a dealer and was not liable to tax on that footing.

Issue (ii): Whether Section 9 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act is a charging provision.

Analysis: Section 9 dealt with licensing and exemption, and could not be read as creating liability to tax. Taxability depended on the substantive charging provision and the statutory definition of dealer, not on whether a person held a licence. The absence of a licence did not by itself make a person taxable.

Conclusion: Section 9 was not a charging section.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee, with the questions answered in the negative.

Ratio Decidendi: A person who merely brokers a sale by bringing the parties together, without authority to conclude the sale or pass title in the goods, is not a dealer for sales tax purposes, and a licensing provision does not itself create a charging liability.

---