Turnover exclusion for agricultural produce applies only to the dealer's own turnover, not to a commission agent-dealer

The proviso to section 2(r) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act was construed as applying only to the dealer's own turnover. A commission agent who also acts as a dealer, and sells in his own right for disclosed or undisclosed principals, is not treated as a mere agent simpliciter for this purpose. The word "himself" was read to mean the dealer whose turnover is under consideration, so the exclusion is available only where that dealer has grown the agricultural produce on land in which he has an interest. The analogy of section 14A was held irrelevant, and the claimed turnover exclusion failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a commission agent who is also a dealer can claim exclusion from turnover under the proviso to section 2(r) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act in respect of sales of agricultural produce grown by the principal.

Analysis: The proviso to section 2(r) was construed as relating to the turnover in the hands of the dealer himself. A mere agent simpliciter stands on a different footing from a commission agent who is a dealer and sells in his own right on behalf of disclosed or undisclosed principals. The expression "himself" in the proviso was held to refer to the dealer whose turnover is under consideration. On that construction, the benefit of exclusion was available only where the dealer himself had grown the produce on land in which he had an interest. The analogy of section 14A was held to be of no assistance.

Conclusion: The assessee, being a commission agent and dealer, was not entitled to the claimed exclusion from turnover; the finding of the Tribunal was set aside and the claim failed.

---