Outside-State sales defeated assessment; broader questions on "dealer" and Rule 6 were left undecided.

Sales of goods despatched by the respondent company were found to have taken place outside the State, and the appellants could not show that the respondent had an office or agent within the State for the relevant turnover. On that factual basis, the assessment could not be invalidated, because even if the wider arguments on the meaning of "dealer" and the construction of Rule 6 were accepted, the respondent would still not be liable on the turnover in question. The Court declined to decide those broader questions or endorse the earlier judge's reasoning, and the appeal was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessment could be sustained when the goods were sold outside the State and the respondent company had no office or agent within the State, and whether it was necessary to decide the wider questions concerning the meaning of "dealer" and the effect of Rule 6.

Analysis: The appeal failed on the facts because the appellants could not contend that the sales of the goods despatched by the respondent company took place within the State. On that footing, even if the broader submissions on the definition of "dealer" and the construction of Rule 6 were accepted, the respondent company would not be liable to assessment on the turnover in question. The Court therefore found it unnecessary to express any opinion on the wider legal questions and declined to endorse the earlier judge's reasoning on those points.

Conclusion: The assessment was not shown to be invalid on the factual basis urged, and the appeal was dismissed.

---