TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1954 (7) TMI 15
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... send a telegram to Bombay customers and silver and gold would be received by the plaintiffs from the Bombay merchants. On the date of the receipt of the goods a bill would be prepared and the signature of the principal customer taken and a commission of 5 annas per Rs. 100 in the case of gold, and 6 annas per Rs. 100 in the case of silver would be given to the plaintiffs. To put it shortly, their case is that they purchased silver and gold from the Bombay merchants for and on behalf of their customers and that they received nothing more than the commission to which they were entitled. The defendant contended in the written statement that the plaintiffs were not commission agents for the purchase of gold and silver and that they carried on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and cannot be relied upon in support of the plaintiffs' case. The expenditure incurred in connection with the telegrams alleged to have been sent by the plaintiffs to the Bombay merchants was not debited to the plaintiffs' accounts. Nor do the accounts maintained by the customers disclose that any amount was spent by them for sending the said telegrams. The accounts maintained by the Bombay merchants have not been produced. The correspondence that must have passed between the plaintiffs and the Bombay merchants has not been produced. But the accounts of the plaintiffs show that, in respect of the suit transac- tions, the plaintiffs had only taken commission. The bills establish that the plaintiffs passed on the goods received by them from....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ras(1) had to consider the scope of Section 2(b) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act. The learned Judges held that the definition of "dealer" in Section 2(b) would cover also cases of persons mentioned in Section 8, who would but for that section, be liable to taxation under Section 3. The learned Chief Justice laid down that under certain circumstances a commission agent doing business would fall within the definition of "dealer" and that neither the definition of "dealer" nor of "sale" contemplates as a necessary condition that the goods sold should belong to the person selling or buying and that there can be a sale or purchase on behalf of another. In this case, on the facts found the plaintiffs were dealing on their own behalf. They did....