9911796707
TMI Blog1959 (10) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a turnover of Rs. 11,80,893-7-7. That plea failed. This sum was made up of two items, (1) Rs. 11,65,268-9-9, which represented the turnover in the sales of hides and skins, which belonged to principals not resident within the State of Madras, and (2) Rs. 15,624-13-10, which represented the turnover of sales of hides and skins which belonged to resident principals. The assessee acted as the agent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er since rule 16(4) made only transactions of licensed dealers taxable, the petitioner as an agent of unlicensed dealers could not have been taxed when the principals themselves could not have been taxed. The first of the contentions we have to negative in view of our decision in W.P. No. 400 of 1957*, wherein we have upheld the validity of rule 16(4), and where we have pointed out that there was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 14-A(1) is that with reference to the goods of the non-resident dealers sold within the State of Madras, the agent, in this case the petitioners, is deemed to be the dealer. We are unable to see anything in section 14-A(1) or elsewhere in the Act, which further limits the operation of the fiction nor can we see anything to support the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee. That the non-resident dealer could not have been taxed direct does not really affect the liability of the petitioner, the liability regulated by section 14-A(1) to Since reported as Abdul Subhan & Co. v. The State of Madras and Another [1960] 11 S.T.C. 173. which will have to be added the provisions of rule 16(4) of the (Turnover and Assessment) Rules. The learned counsel for the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
