TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 637X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RT] wherein the assessee rightly contended that in respect of the sales covering the turnovers in dispute, the society merely acted as an intermediary, bringing together the agriculturist-principals and the respective purchasers is auction held in the presence of the members and that the society did not actually do any business of purchasing or selling to make itself liable to assessment under the TNGST Act - the respondent/society acted as an intermediary, bringing together the agriculturists-principals and the buyer, and they have no authority to sell the goods and, therefore, the respondent/ society is not a 'dealer' as defined under Section 2(g) of the TNGST Act - as the respondent/society has not effected any sale, they have not acquir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the agriculturists independently and did not have any dominion over the goods which are sold in the auction effected by the assessee and as such not exigible to tax, is correct? 4. T.C.(R) Nos.1988 and 1990 of 2006 were admitted on the following questions of law: (i)Whether the Tribunal is legally correct in holding that the auction sales effected by the assessee is not taxable in their hands since they only acted as intermediary and, therefore, not falling with the definition of 'dealer' and 'sale'? (ii)Whether the order of the Tribunal is right in affirming the deletion of consequential penalty levied under Section 12(5)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959? 5. T.C.(R) No.2091 of 2006 was admi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l, the present revisions are filed on the questions of law referred supra. 11. We have heard the learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes) appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent/society and perused the orders passed by the Tribunal and the authorities below. 12. In The Tiruchengode Co-operative Marketing Society Limited case, referred supra, the main contention raised by the society was that in respect of the sales covering the turnovers in dispute, the society merely acted as an intermediary, bringing together the agriculturist-principals and the respective purchasers is auction held in the presence of the members and that the society did not actually do any business of purchasing or selling to make ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re, they are not liable to sales tax. The operative portion of the said decision reads as under: The above note will clearly show that the assessee had no authority to sell the produce of a particular agriculturist without his consent. Consequently, the documents make clear the following two facts: (1) The assessee had no authority to sell the goods without the consent of the member concerned; and (2) actually at the auction the goods are sold only when the agriculturist-member accepts the price offered. These two facts about which there is no controversy clearly establish that the assessee cannot be said to have authority to transfer the property in the goods. Even if the assessee could be said to have dominion over the goods, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|