Del credere agent liability upheld where transaction control and suppressed sales justified tax demand and penalty.

A del credere agent was held liable for tax demand and penalty where the agreement and surrounding facts showed control over the transaction, non-compliance with statutory obligations, and suppression of sales. The assessing authority found that the buyer was a non-existing dealer, the transactions were not properly accounted for, and the petitioner failed to prove delivery at the claimed destination. The court found no material inconsistency or vagueness in the show cause notices or assessment orders, accepted the factual findings on domain over the goods, and declined interference under writ jurisdiction. The challenge therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner, as a del credere agent under the agreement with the principal, was liable for the tax demand and penalty arising from the impugned transactions and whether the show cause notices and assessment orders suffered from vagueness or inconsistency warranting interference under writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The petitioner had entered into a del credere agency arrangement and, on the facts found by the assessing authority, had not complied with the statutory obligations applicable to such an agent. The records showed that the alleged buyer was a non-existing dealer, the transactions were not properly accounted for, and the petitioner failed to produce documents establishing delivery at the claimed destination. The agreement itself placed responsibility on the del credere agent for compliance with statutory requirements and for collection and payment of sale proceeds and taxes. The Court found no material inconsistency in the notices or orders, distinguished the authorities relied on by the petitioner, and accepted the assessing authority's finding that the petitioner had domain over the goods and that the transaction involved suppression of sales.

Conclusion: The petitioner was liable for the tax demand, and the challenge to the show cause notices and assessment orders failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the agreement and surrounding facts show that a del credere agent retained control over the transaction and failed to comply with the statutory obligations attached to that role, the assessment based on suppression of sales and related tax liability cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction merely by alleging vagueness or inconsistency in the notices.

---