Intermediary coal supply transactions are not taxable sales where the agent never acquires title or ownership.

A writ challenge to a sales tax assessment was not barred by alternative remedy, laches, or acquiescence where the dispute went to the taxing authority's power and involved an asserted restraint on the right to trade; the delay was explained and mere inclusion of turnover in returns did not amount to waiver or estoppel. On the merits, coal transactions routed through the petitioner were held to be intermediary dealings only: the Colliery Control Order fixed the sale terms, the allotment and delivery stood in the name of the sanctioned buyer, and the petitioner never acquired title in the coal. As no taxable sale by the petitioner was established, sales tax could not be levied on those supplies and the assessment was quashed to that extent.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was barred by the existence of an alternative remedy, laches, or acquiescence. (ii) Whether the petitioner was merely a broker or agent in the coal transactions so that no taxable sale by it arose under the sales tax law.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was barred by the existence of an alternative remedy, laches, or acquiescence.

Analysis: The challenge was to the very authority to levy tax on the disputed transactions, and the petition also asserted infringement of the right to carry on trade. In such a case, the availability of an appeal did not bar writ relief. The delay was explained by the uncontroverted governmental consideration of exemption, and the inclusion of the disputed turnover in returns did not amount to waiver or estoppel because a tax can be recovered only under authority of law.

Conclusion: The preliminary objections of alternative remedy, laches, and acquiescence were rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner was merely a broker or agent in the coal transactions so that no taxable sale by it arose under the sales tax law.

Analysis: The Colliery Control Order restricted coal sales to sanctioned buyers, fixed the sale price, and allowed only brokerage to a broker. The allotment, railway receipts, and delivery were all in favour of the Rajasthan Power House engineer, and the petitioner never acquired title in the coal. Its role was confined to arranging despatch, passing on railway receipts, and collecting the price as an intermediary. On the statutory and contractual scheme, the word "supply" in the dealer definition was read in a sales-linked sense and could not extend to a mere middleman transaction without transfer of property.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not liable to sales tax on the disputed coal supplies, as no taxable sale by it was established.

Final Conclusion: The assessment and consequential penalty were quashed only to the extent they included the price of coal supplied directly by the collieries to the State through the petitioner as an intermediary.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a person acts only as a broker or intermediary and never acquires title in the goods, the transaction is not a taxable sale by that person, and tax cannot be levied on the value of such supplies in his turnover.

---