Court-appointed receiver not treated as dealer; final sales tax dues during receivership remained recoverable from proprietors.

A court-appointed receiver managing a disputed business was not a "dealer" under section 2(c) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act because he was only supervising the business and was not carrying on buying or selling for commission, remuneration, or otherwise. He also did not fall within the deeming provision for mercantile agents. Even on an agency basis, sales tax liabilities left unpaid during the receivership remained enforceable against the principals after the receiver's appointment ended. As the assessments had become final, the tax demand was validly recoverable from the proprietors.

---

---

Issues: Whether a court-appointed receiver of a business in dispute is a "dealer" for the purposes of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, and whether sales tax dues for the period of receivership can be enforced against the proprietors after the assessment has become final.

Analysis: A receiver appointed by the court was held not to fall within the definition of "dealer" in section 2(c) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. He was only managing the business and was not carrying on the business of buying or selling goods for commission, remuneration or otherwise. He was also not brought within the deeming explanation applicable to mercantile agents. Even on an agency analogy, liabilities left undischarged during the receivership would, on cessation of the receiver's appointment, remain enforceable against the principals who claimed to be the proprietors. Since the assessments had become final, the resulting demand was enforceable against them.

Conclusion: The receiver was not the statutory dealer, and the sales tax demand was validly recoverable from the petitioners.

---