https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102027 A kutcha arhatiya was treated as a dealer under section 2(c) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 because the statutory explanation expressly covered factors, brokers, commission agents, arhatiyas and similar mercantile agents, and the assessee in substance received goods, arranged sales, paid cultivators and realised sale proceeds. The High Court's contrary view was wrong. A reference under section 11(4) was confined to questions arising from the revisional order, so the High Court could not examine the validity of a best judgment assessment under section 7(3) when that issue had not been raised or decided in revision. The revisional order for fresh assessment was restored. en-us Tue, 26 Aug 1980 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Sep 2013 09:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102027 A kutcha arhatiya was treated as a dealer under section 2(c) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 because the statutory explanation expressly covered factors, brokers, commission agents, arhatiyas and similar mercantile agents, and the assessee in substance received goods, arranged sales, paid cultivators and realised sale proceeds. The High Court's contrary view was wrong. A reference under section 11(4) was confined to questions arising from the revisional order, so the High Court could not examine the validity of a best judgment assessment under section 7(3) when that issue had not been raised or decided in revision. The revisional order for fresh assessment was restored. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 26 Aug 1980 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102027