Kaccha adat sales and dealer status: mere auction facilitation did not make the assessee liable for taxable turnover.

Kaccha adat transactions were not taxable in the assessee's hands because the cultivators brought the produce to the assessee's fad, accepted the bids themselves, and completed the sales while the assessee merely facilitated the auction, collected the sale price, and retained commission. The assessee had no dominion or custody over the goods and was not carrying on the business of buying, selling, supplying, or distributing goods on behalf of any principal within the statutory definition of "dealer". A sales tax reference in the bill did not make the assessee liable, because there can be no estoppel against a statute. The disputed amounts were therefore excluded from taxable turnover.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned transactions represented kaccha adat transactions not taxable in the hands of the dealer, or sales includible in the taxable turnover; and whether the assessee fell within the definition of "dealer" under the sales tax law.

Analysis: The facts found showed that the cultivators brought their produce to the assessee's fad, remained present at the auction, accepted the bids themselves, and completed the sale. The assessee had no dominion or custody over the goods, merely facilitated the auction, collected the sale price from buyers, and paid the cultivators after retaining commission. The conclusion that the assessee was a dealer merely because sales tax had been mentioned in the bill was rejected, since there can be no estoppel against a statute. On the proven facts, the assessee was not carrying on the business of buying, selling, supplying, or distributing goods on behalf of any principal within section 2(d).

Conclusion: The assessee was not a dealer in respect of the disputed transactions, and the amounts could not be included in the assessee's taxable turnover.

---