9911796707
TMI Blog1953 (7) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... turnover of Rs. 8,61,243-14-7 and from 9th December, 1944, to 31st March, 1945, the turnover was Rs. 7,18,276-4-6. In regard to the turnover for the first period, the plaintiffs' contention is that they were exempted from taxation as they must be deemed to have had a licence under Section 8 of the Act for that period. In regard to the second period, the Board of Revenue gave them exemption in respect of Rs. 5,45,146 and odd. Out of the balance, in regard to Rs. 77,143-11-3 it is conceded that it related to independent dealings. It is also not disputed that a turnover of a sum of Rs. 6,534 representing dealings with non-resident principals is also liable to tax. The result is that the appellants question the validity of the tax in respect of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t D.W. 1 deposed that during the crucial period he was not the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer of Guntakkal. We do not see any reason to take a different view of the evidence of D.W. 1. If so, it follows that the plaintiffs carried on the business of commission agents without a permit under Section 8 of the Act, and therefore they are not liable to be exempted from the assessment of sales tax. Even so, learned counsel for the appellants contended that in view of the later decisions there is a distinction between an agent, who is a dealer, and one who is only a broker, in the sense he brings the two con. tracting parties together, and that in this case his clients are only brokers. But this aspect of the case was not raised anywhere in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmitted to the Sales Tax Authorities, it is the duty of the Court to give reasons why it thought fit to reject them. But assuming the entries are true, in our view they do not carry the plaintiffs' case further. They would only show that some amounts were collected by the plaintiffs and paid for the purposes men- tioned in the accounts. The plaintiffs could succeed only by adducing reliable evidence and by establishing that the collections and the pay- ment of the rusums etc. were part of the agreed commission. They must establish that there was either an agreement between the agent and the principal to the effect that these rusums etc. should be treated as part of the agreed commission, or at any rate, there should be some acceptable evide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
