Commission agent treated as part of dealer for purchase tax purposes, defeating reassessment under sales tax law.

A commission agent falling within the statutory definition of "dealer" is not a separate person from the principal dealer for applying the proviso to purchase tax provisions under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. Where sales are routed through such an agent, the transaction does not by itself create purchase tax liability on the footing that the sale was made by a different person. On that construction, the reassessment could not be sustained and the levy was treated as unsustainable, with the assessment set aside and refund consequences following if tax had been paid.

---

---

Issues: Whether a sale routed through a commission agent is a sale by a person different from the dealer for the purpose of purchase tax under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948.

Analysis: The definition of "dealer" under section 2(d) of the Act expressly includes a factor, broker, commission agent or similar mercantile agent carrying on the business of selling, supplying or purchasing goods on behalf of principals. On that construction, a dealer and his commission agent are not separate persons for the purpose of applying the proviso to section 5(2)(a)(ii). Since the goods were sold through commission agents and the record did not support the case that the statutory liability for purchase tax arose on that footing, the reassessment could not stand.

Conclusion: The levy of purchase tax under section 5(2)(a)(ii) was unsustainable and the assessment was liable to be set aside in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned assessment was quashed and the tax, if paid, was directed to be refunded, with costs awarded to the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: A commission agent included within the statutory definition of dealer cannot be treated as a distinct person from the dealer himself so as to attract purchase tax liability under the proviso to section 5(2)(a)(ii).

---