Agency-based sales can create dealer status where the sub-agent actually sells goods and transfers title, despite supervisory approval.

An agent or sub-agent that actually conducts sales and transfers title to purchasers falls within the wide definition of "dealer" under the State sales tax laws. Under the cotton pool scheme, the marketing association arranged the sales and effected the transfers, while the marketing society's approval operated only as supervisory control to protect advances and secure a fair price for growers. That approval did not displace the association's role as the actual seller. The association was therefore a dealer and liable to sales tax.

---

---

Issues: Whether the tahsil co-operative agricultural marketing association, acting under the cotton pool scheme as a sub-agent of the marketing society, was a dealer liable to sales tax under the applicable State sales tax laws before and after 1 April 1959.

Analysis: The definition of dealer under both the old and new sales tax laws was wide enough to include an agent or mercantile agent carrying on the business of selling goods. The controlling consideration was whether the association was itself conducting sales and passing title to purchasers. The scheme showed that the association arranged the sales, and the requirement of approval by the marketing society was only a supervisory control intended to protect advances and secure a fair price for growers. That control did not negate the association's role as the actual seller. The association, not the marketing society, effected the sale and transferred title to the purchasers.

Conclusion: The association was a dealer and was liable to sales tax.

Ratio Decidendi: An agent or sub-agent who actually conducts sales and passes title to purchasers is a dealer for sales tax purposes, and supervisory approval by the principal does not by itself exclude dealer status.

---