1951 (11) TMI 10 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the plaintiffs, who are commission agents, qualify as "dealers" under the Madras General Sales Tax Act (IX of 1939).
2. Whether the plaintiffs violated the conditions of their licenses under Section 8 of the Act.
3. Whether the plaintiffs are liable to pay sales tax despite any alleged violations of license conditions.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the plaintiffs qualify as "dealers" under the Madras General Sales Tax Act (IX of 1939):

The primary question in this appeal is whether the plaintiffs, who operate as commission agents, fall under the definition of "dealers" as per the Madras General Sales Tax Act (IX of 1939). The definition of a dealer is provided in Section 2(b) of the Act, which states: "dealer means any person who carries on the business of buying or selling goods." The court examined the nature of the plaintiffs' business, which involved acting as agents for several seller principals, selling goods at specified prices, and having the authority to transfer property and title in the goods to buyers. The plaintiffs did not disclose the names of the principals to the buyers, and the transactions appeared to be between the plaintiffs and the buyers.

The court distinguished between brokers, who merely bring buyers and sellers together, and commission agents, who have custody or possession of the goods and authority to sell in their own name. The court concluded that commission agents, like the plaintiffs, who sell goods with the authority of the owner and transfer property to the buyer, fall within the definition of "dealer" under the Act. The court noted that the definition of "dealer" does not exclude persons buying and selling on account of others.

2. Whether the plaintiffs violated the conditions of their licenses under Section 8 of the Act:

Section 8 of the Act allows the Provincial Government to license commission agents, exempting them from tax under Section 3 for transactions carried out according to the license terms. The plaintiffs had obtained licenses under Section 8, which contained conditions such as submitting monthly returns and ensuring that goods bought or sold through them were included in the turnover of the principals.

The Sales Tax Officer argued that the plaintiffs violated the license conditions by making extra collections (rusum) from buyers, which were not passed on to the seller principals or included in their turnover. The court examined the nature of these extra collections and found that they were customary charges made by all commission agents in the locality and were known to both buyers and sellers. The court held that these collections were part of the agreed commission and not a violation of the license conditions.

3. Whether the plaintiffs are liable to pay sales tax despite any alleged violations of license conditions:

Assuming that the plaintiffs violated the license conditions, the court considered whether they would still be liable to pay sales tax as dealers. The court reiterated that commission agents, who have custody of goods and authority to sell, fall within the definition of "dealer." However, since the court found that the plaintiffs did not violate the license conditions, they were entitled to the exemption provided under Section 8 of the Act.

The court also addressed conflicting decisions in previous cases. In "Province of Madras v. Sivalakshminarayana," it was suggested that a commission agent could be deemed a dealer. In "Government of Madras v. Veerabhadrappa," the court held that mere brokers bringing buyers and sellers together were not dealers. The court clarified that commission agents with authority to sell and transfer property in goods are dealers, whereas mere brokers are not.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the plaintiffs, as commission agents with authority to sell goods, qualify as dealers under the Madras General Sales Tax Act. However, since they did not violate the conditions of their licenses under Section 8, they were entitled to the exemption from sales tax. Consequently, the court allowed Appeals Nos. 365, 468, 551, and 447 of 1947, and dismissed Appeal No. 641 of 1947, decreeing the suits in favor of the plaintiffs.

← Previous Next →