Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, on a proper construction of the agreement dated 1 January 1964, the relationship between the applicant and its sole selling agent was that of principal and agent or vendor and purchaser.
Analysis: The agreement described the intermediary as sole selling agent, required it to forward orders with advances, authorised it to issue invoices on behalf of the manufacturer, fixed its remuneration by way of commission, and empowered it to take steps for realisation of sale proceeds and to sue in the manufacturer's name if the purchaser defaulted. The controlling terms concerning prices, discounts, collection of proceeds, and enforcement of claims showed that the agent acted for the manufacturer and did not buy the goods for resale on its own account. The mere fact that invoices were issued in the agent's name and sales tax was collected by it was not decisive, since the legal relationship had to be gathered from the agreement itself.
Conclusion: The relationship was that of principal and agent and not vendor and purchaser. The answer to the referred question was therefore in the negative and in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: The true relationship between parties to a distribution arrangement is determined by the substance of the agreement, and where the intermediary sells on behalf of the manufacturer for commission with the manufacturer retaining control over the sale process and realisation of price, the arrangement is one of agency and not sale.