Dealer status under sales tax law requires authority to sell, not mere handling of goods; assessments were set aside.

A handling agent was held not to be a "dealer" under section 2(c) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 for fertiliser supplied to State Governments and government bodies because the records did not show authority to choose buyers, fix price, determine quantity, or conclude sales in its own right. Mere delivery, collection, or other handling functions were insufficient to amount to authority to sell and transfer property in the goods. The later departmental letter did not override the original contractual arrangement or establish such authority. The fertiliser deliveries therefore were not sales by the petitioner, and the assessment and revisional orders were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was a "dealer" within section 2(c) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 in respect of fertiliser supplied to State Governments and Government bodies, and whether those transactions constituted sales liable to sales tax.

Analysis: The definition of "dealer" under section 2(c), as retrospectively expanded to include handling agents, still required proof that the person had authority in the customary course of business to sell goods belonging to the principal and to transfer property in those goods. Mere handling, delivery, or collection work was insufficient. On the documents and basic records referred to, the petitioner had no unfettered authority to choose buyers, fix price, determine quantity, or otherwise conclude sales independently. The later departmental letter was not treated as overriding the earlier contractual arrangement or as establishing such authority. The provisions of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 were considered only as illustrating principles of mercantile agency and transfer of property, but they did not establish that the petitioner itself had authority to sell.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not a "dealer" for these transactions, and the fertiliser deliveries to State Governments and Government bodies did not amount to sales by the petitioner. The assessment and revisional orders to that extent were set aside in favour of the petitioner.

---