Agency versus sale in turnover computation: freight formed part of turnover where dealer sold on own account.

The decisive question was whether the dealer acted as a commission agent for brick-kiln owners or sold coal on his own account. The Court held that the agency claim was unsupported because no purchase orders or other material showed the principals contracting through the dealer. The dealer dealt in his own name, used statutory forms, bore freight and related charges until delivery, and transferred title only on delivery. Applying the substance-over-label distinction between agency and sale, the Court found the transactions were sales by the dealer and not agency transactions. Inward freight therefore formed part of turnover, and the Tribunal's contrary view was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the dealer was a commission agent acting on behalf of principals, so that freight charged separately could be excluded from turnover, or whether the transactions were purchases and sales on the dealer's own account making freight part of turnover.

Analysis: The Tribunal's view that the dealer acted as an agent was found unsupported by evidence. The dealer had not produced purchase orders or any material showing that the brick-kiln owners were the principals who contracted through him. The record showed that the dealer handled the coal in his own name, used statutory forms, bore the freight and other charges up to delivery, and transferred title only on delivery. Applying the distinction between agency and sale, the Court held that the real nature of the dealings, and not the label used in the bills, was decisive. On the facts, the transactions were transactions of sale by the dealer on his own account and not agency transactions.

Conclusion: The dealer was not a commission agent, and the inward freight formed part of his turnover; the Tribunal's contrary finding was unsustainable and the revisions succeeded.

---