Dealer's licence does not cover agency sales for non-resident principals; such turnover remains separately taxable under the sales tax scheme.

A Form IV licence for a hides-and-skins dealer covered only the dealer's own transactions and did not extend to sales made as agent for non-resident principals. The statutory scheme treated agency dealings separately, and the agent's deemed-dealer status did not merge the principals' turnover with his personal business turnover. Agency sales outside the licence were therefore assessable on their own footing, and the turnover did not escape multi-point levy under the later view adopted by the court.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a licence in Form IV issued to a dealer in hides and skins covered sales effected by him as agent of non-resident principals. (ii) Whether turnover arising from such unlicensed agency transactions could escape multi-point levy.

Issue (i): Whether a licence in Form IV issued to a dealer in hides and skins covered sales effected by him as agent of non-resident principals.

Analysis: The licence in Form IV was intended to cover the licensee's own dealings as a dealer in hides and skins. The statutory scheme treated agency transactions separately. A separate licence was required for commission agency transactions on behalf of resident principals under section 8 read with rule 5(1) of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules, 1939. By contrast, where the principals were non-residents and unlicensed dealers, the agent might be assessed as a deemed dealer under section 14-A of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, but that did not convert the principals' turnover into the agent's own business turnover. The principal-agent relationship could not be ignored so as to extend the agent's personal licence to transactions carried on on behalf of non-resident principals.

Conclusion: The licence in Form IV did not cover the respondents' agency transactions on behalf of non-resident principals.

Issue (ii): Whether turnover arising from such unlicensed agency transactions could escape multi-point levy.

Analysis: The earlier view that unlicensed agency sales could not be brought to tax under multi-point levy was no longer tenable in view of the later Full Bench decision. Once the agency turnover was outside the protection of the Form IV licence, it stood on the footing of unlicensed transactions and was liable to be taxed according to the statutory scheme. The agent's deemed-dealer status did not require his own dealings and his agency dealings to be clubbed, and the latter had to be separately assessed in respect of each non-resident principal.

Conclusion: The disputed turnover was liable to multi-point levy and did not enjoy immunity from tax.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal's conclusions on both issues were reversed, and the assessment on the disputed turnover was sustained in full.

Ratio Decidendi: A dealer's licence issued for his own business does not extend to agency sales carried on for non-resident principals, and an agent treated as a deemed dealer remains distinct from the principal for purposes of assessment and levy unless the statute expressly provides otherwise.

---