Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a co-operative marketing society acting as an intermediary in auction sales of agricultural produce, without authority to sell the goods independently or transfer property in the goods, is a dealer under Section 2(g) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and liable to sales tax, including consequential penalty.
Analysis: The controlling test is whether the society carried on the business of buying, selling, supplying or distributing goods, or otherwise effected a sale so as to attract the statutory definition of dealer. The earlier binding view applied in the case law relied on by the Court was that a society which merely facilitates auction between agriculturist-principals and buyers, without authority to sell the produce without the member's consent and without authority to transfer title in the goods, does not itself effect a sale. On the facts before it, the Court found that the respondent society functioned only as an intermediary bringing together the agriculturists and the purchasers, and not as an independent seller.
Conclusion: The respondent society is not a dealer under Section 2(g) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, the auction turnover is not taxable in its hands, and the consequential penalty does not survive.