Purchase tax on exempt scheduled goods was unavailable, and agency findings defeated levy against the purchaser.

Section 5-A of the H.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1968 was confined by its opening words to goods other than those in Schedule B, so it could not be used to levy purchase tax on exempt agricultural produce such as maize purchased directly from the grower. The later language of the section could not expand its scope beyond that plain limitation. The document also states that the maize was bought in the principal's account, with orders, packing material and transport arranged by the principal, supporting an agency relationship. On those facts, the petitioner acted only as agent, and no purchase tax was leviable against it.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Section 5-A of the H.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1968 applies to goods specified in Schedule B; (ii) Whether the maize purchases were made by the petitioner as agent of the principal and, therefore, no purchase tax was leviable.

Issue (i): Whether Section 5-A of the H.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1968 applies to goods specified in Schedule B.

Analysis: Section 5-A was held to operate only in respect of goods other than those specified in Schedule B. Since agricultural produce purchased directly from the grower was exempt under Section 7 and the maize fell within the exempted category, the opening words of Section 5-A excluded its application. The later clauses of Section 5-A could not enlarge the provision beyond its plain scope.

Conclusion: Section 5-A did not authorize levy of purchase tax on Schedule B goods, and the levy was unsustainable on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the maize purchases were made by the petitioner as agent of the principal and, therefore, no purchase tax was leviable.

Analysis: The material accepted by the Assessing Officer showed that the principal placed orders, sent packing material and trucks, and the maize was purchased in the principal's account. Those admitted findings supported the conclusion that the petitioner acted only as an agent. Even otherwise, if the transaction were treated as a purchase and onward movement outside the State, the case would not justify levy by the State on the facts found. The State's reliance on the declaration form was insufficient to displace the factual finding of agency.

Conclusion: The maize was purchased on behalf of the principal, so no tax was leviable against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The assessment order could not stand because the statutory provision invoked did not cover the goods in question and, on the facts found, the petitioner was only an agent purchasing for the principal.

Ratio Decidendi: A purchase tax provision confined by its opening words to goods other than exempt scheduled goods cannot be applied to scheduled goods, and where the purchaser acts merely as an agent purchasing for a disclosed principal on facts accepted by the assessing authority, no purchase tax is leviable on the agent.

---