TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1989 (1) TMI 321
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nally assessed under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act by the Commercial Tax Officer, Nellore, for the assessment year 1973-74 on a net turnover of Rs. 4,46,811.19. An appeal was preferred by the dealer questioning, inter alia, the levy of tax on a turnover of Rs. 72,850.46. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner set aside the assessment with respect to the above turnover. Thereupon, the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of his suo motu powers of revision under sub-section (2) of section 20 revised the said appellate order in so far as it held that the turnover in a sum of Rs. 72,850.46 is not exigible to tax. The dealer thereupon filed an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal held, following the decision of this Court in Irri Veera Raju ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....before Act 5 of 1968, in so far as it is relevant, read as follows: "(e) 'Dealer' means any person who carries on the business of buying, selling, supplying or distributing goods directly or otherwise, whether for cash, or for deferred payment, or for commission, remuneration or other valuable consideration, and includes- (iv) a commission agent, a broker, a del credere agent, an auctioneer or any other mercantile agent, by whatever name called, who carries on the business of buying, selling, supplying or distributing goods on behalf of any principal." Section 5(1) as it stood at the relevant time provided: "Every dealer (other than a casual trader and an agent of a nonresident dealer) whose total turnover for a year is n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....them. Each principal's turnover did not exceed the taxable limit. The petitioners accordingly claimed that they too are not liable to tax. The department did not agree. When the matter came to this Court, it was held that the words "on behalf of any principal" occurring in the definition of dealer in section 2(1)(e)(iv) of the Act indicate that the agent is a dealer in respect of each of the principals and that he is deemed to be as many dealers as there are principals. It was held that the total turnover of the petitioners in respect of several principals could not be computed for assessing them when, in fact, the turnover of each one of the principals was below the taxable limit. In other words, it was held that inasmuch as the liabili....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ler' in sub-clause (iv) of clause (e) of sub-section (1) of section 2." The purpose of the amended section 11 clearly was to make the agent liable irrespective of the fact that the principal was not liable on the ground that his turnover was below the prescribed limit. In other words, the turnover of the agent was made relevant. The amended section 11 was however struck down by this Court in Konathala Venkata Ramana v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1969] 24 STC 367 as discriminatory. This Court reiterated the principle that the agent's liability is coextensive with that of the principal and since section 11 is only a machinery section and not a charging section, the agent cannot be made liable without making the principal liable. It was held ....