1975 (10) TMI 91

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tive society and sells foodgrains of its constituent members. On a notice being sent to it by the Sales Tax Officer, the assessee denied working as a commission agent, and contended that it was not a "dealer" and, as such, not liable to payment of any tax. This contention was not accepted by the Sales Tax Officer and he fixed the net turnover for 1960-61 at Rs. 90,117.06, for 1961-62 at Rs. 4,10,225.18 and for 1962-63 at Rs. 6,17,680.78. An appeal was filed by the assessee but the contention that he was not a dealer was not accepted. A revision was thereafter filed. The Judge (Revisions) accepted the plea that the petitioner was not a dealer and, as such, set aside the assessment. It would be convenient to set out the definition of a dealer....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ved commission on the sales. After completing the sales, the assessee used to issue purchase vouchers giving out the details of the purchase without naming the constituent-members as sellers. The Sales Tax Officer taking these facts into account, and also the fact that the assessee had its own place of business, and its own capital, and had been issuing sale receipts in its own name after making certain deductions, held that the assessee was a dealer. While making assessment, he had also examined a number of purchasers who had stated that they had no direct contact with the constituent-members, while effecting purchases, and all the purchases used to be made from the society directly. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner found that the asse....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....court: (1) Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd., Kalpi Jalaun v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P.[1972] 29 S.T.C. 619; 1972 U.P.T.C. 86., and the other (2) Commissioner, Sales Tax v. Co-operative Marketing Society, Khaga, Fatehpur[1975] 35 S.T.C. 172; 1975 U.P.T.C. 276.  In view of the findings recorded by the Judge (Revisions) we take it that the foodgrains pawned by the members could not be sold by the assessee without their consent. The fact, however, remains that it was the assessee who used to finalise the sales and make every other arrangements for this purpose, and also charge its commission for effecting the sales. It has been found by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the sales receipts were being issued by the assessee ....