Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2011 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (4) TMI 1252 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURTWhether in the facts, figures and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law, sustaining the finding of the first appellate authority that sole distributor does not mean one person in the State and there may be several number of sole distributors for the same company and all such distributors are coming under the purview of the sixth proviso to section 5(3)(a) of the said Act? Held that:- the sale transactions which are carried on under a product name, exclusively by a certain dealer are covered, does not contemplate that exclusive right to deal with the said goods should be given to a particular dealer or sole dealer. The contention of the learned advocate for the petitioner that one more dealer is also dealing, the proviso is not attracted is an incorrect approach. In view of the section covering the specified class of the transactions, the material particulars of the transactions of the petitioner, fall within the ambit of the section as the petitioner is dealing with the RAJPHOS, as an agent of the manufacturer M/s. Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Limited. "Exclusively used" cannot be given a meaning according to geographical boundaries. Exclusively has to be understood authorising the one, excluding other or a group. Court holds that there is no merit in the submission of the learned advocate for the petitioner, so it is rejected. Appeal dismissed.
|