TMI Blog1956 (7) TMI 40X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x Officer, Banaras, against the res- pondent company. The respondent company is incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and has its registered office in Bombay. It has branch offices at Calcutta, Madras and Delhi, but it is common ground that it has no office or agent within this State. In the course however of its business the company supplied goods to persons in the United Provinces. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x Officer should be, no assessment could validly be made. Mr. Justice Chowdhary was of opinion that both the submissions were well-founded. In his opinion a person or association of persons would not be a "dealer" within the meaning of that term as defined in section 2(c) of the Act unless he or it was physically present within the territorial limits of the State. He was further of opinion that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f that rule. Learned counsel for the appellants however found himself unable to contend that upon the facts of this case, as set out in the affidavit accompanying the petition, the sales of the goods despatched by the respondent company to the United Provinces took place in this State. It is clear therefore that even if the submissions made by learned counsel with regard to the true interpretation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
