Commission agency claim rejected where contemporaneous correspondence showed a taxable sale and not a mere agency arrangement.

A claim that the petitioner acted merely as a commission agent was rejected under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, because the contemporaneous correspondence indicated a sale transaction and did not support an agency arrangement. The revisional authority found that exemption had been wrongly granted, relying on the petitioner's own earlier letter to the purchasing company and the fact that the commission-agent explanation was raised only after the show-cause notice. On that record, the disputed turnover remained taxable, and the revision by the revenue authorities was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner acted only as a commission agent so as to exclude the disputed turnover from tax liability under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957.

Analysis: The assessment had granted exemption on the footing that the petitioner purchased fish oil only on behalf of a registered dealer, but the revisional authority found the exemption to be /incorrectly granted and revised the assessment. The petitioner's own earlier letter to the purchasing company indicated a sale by the petitioner, and the later clarification asserting commission agency was issued only after the show-cause notice. On the record, the original correspondence did not support the plea that there was no sale transaction.

Conclusion: The claim that the petitioner acted merely as a commission agent was rejected, and the turnover was held liable to tax.

Final Conclusion: The revision petition failed and the tax revision made by the revenue authorities was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A belated assertion of commission agency, unsupported by contemporaneous documents and contradicted by the assessee's own prior correspondence, does not displace the finding of a taxable sale transaction.

---