1981 (9) TMI 270

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....there was no agreement of purchase and sale between the assessee and its exU.P. principals. It was further held that an agent cannot make any sale or purchase to his principal. Therefore, when purchases were made by the assessee on behalf of its ex-U.P. principals it was purchased or sold in its own capacity. Reliance was placed on Panna Lal Babu Lal [1956] 7 STC 722. It was also held that once a registered dealer undertakes to carry out his obligation to constituents outside the State such purchases made by such dealer are in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. Reliance for this was placed on Himatsingka Timber Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1966] 18 STC 235 (SC). The Tribunal found that as the assessee had purchased oil-seed and fo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ir behalf. In such circumstances the principle laid down in Hanuman Trading Company's case [1979] 43 STC 408; 1979 UPTC 809 was squarely applicable. The reasoning of the Tribunal based on certain decisions appears to suffer from fallacy. The first decision relied upon by it was Panna Lal Babu Lal's case [1956] 7 STC 722. In that decision it was held that a commission agent does not sell goods to its principal. There can hardly be any dispute that it is settled that commission agent is nothing but an extended hand of a principal. Any transaction which he carries on behalf of the principal he is not a purchaser or seller. He gets commission for certain obligations which he undertakes to perform on behalf of his principal. To infer from thi....