Non-resident dealer liability and first assessment rules under Bombay sales tax law clarified; unsupported turnover exclusion failed.

A non-resident carrying on sales activity in Bombay through an agent and delivery arrangement was treated as a dealer under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946 because the statutory definition was wide enough to cover habitual selling activity within the State. Section 11A was held to apply only to escaped assessment, under-assessment, assessment at a lower rate, or wrongful deductions, so it could not be used for a first assessment; section 11(5) was the proper provision. A claim to exclude goods from taxable turnover failed because the supporting material was insufficient to verify despatch outside Bombay.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether persons carrying on sales activity in Bombay through an agent and delivery arrangement were dealers under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946; (ii) whether section 11A could be invoked in a first assessment instead of section 11(5); and (iii) whether goods claimed to have been despatched outside Bombay were liable to be excluded from taxable turnover.

Issue (i): whether persons carrying on sales activity in Bombay through an agent and delivery arrangement were dealers under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946

Analysis: The applicants were registered in Nagpur but carried on business of selling or supplying goods in Bombay through an agent who maintained a godown there, and delivery to customers in Bombay was established. On those facts, the authorities found that the sales were in Bombay. The definition of dealer in the Act, read with the explanation, was treated as wide enough to include a non-resident who habitually carries on selling activity within the State.

Conclusion: The applicants were dealers under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946.

Issue (ii): whether section 11A could be invoked in a first assessment instead of section 11(5)

Analysis: Section 11A was held to apply to cases of escaped assessment, under-assessment, assessment at a lower rate, or wrongful deductions, and not to a case where a dealer was being assessed for the first time. The proper provision for a first assessment was section 11(5), and the argument that non-assessment itself amounted to escaped assessment was rejected.

Conclusion: Section 11A was inapplicable and assessment under section 11(5) was proper.

Issue (iii): whether goods claimed to have been despatched outside Bombay were liable to be excluded from taxable turnover

Analysis: The applicants produced bills and letters, but not railway receipt numbers, in support of the claim that certain goods had been sent outside the State. In the absence of such material, the authorities could not verify the claim, and the exclusion sought was disallowed.

Conclusion: The claim for exclusion of the disputed goods from taxable turnover was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The applications failed on all substantive grounds and the tax assessments with penalties were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A non-resident who habitually carries on sales activity within the State through an agent may be treated as a dealer, section 11A applies only to escaped or under-assessed turnover and not to a first assessment, and a claim to exclude goods from taxable turnover must be supported by reliable proof.

---