Skip to content


Appalli Abdul Rahim and Co. Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberW.P. Nos. 1278 and 1280 of 1957
Judge
Reported in[1960]11STC357(AP)
AppellantAppalli Abdul Rahim and Co.
RespondentDeputy Commercial Tax Officer
Appellant AdvocateC. Mallikarjuna Rao, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateThe Third Government Pleader
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
- all india services act, 1951.sections 8 & 11 & a.p. buildings (lease, rent and eviction) control rules, 1961, rule 5: [v.v.s. rao, g. yethirajulu & g. bhavani prasad, jj] refusal by landlord to receive rent - deposit of rent in court - held, a tenant has the option to take recourse to section 8 in case of refusal or evasion by landlord to receive rent and if landlord were to not name a bank or refuse even the money order of rent, the tenant can deposit the rent in accordance with sub-rules (1) to (3) of rule 5. the notice to person entitled to rent and proper maintenance of accounts of such deposits under sub-rules (4) and (5) of rule 5 are solely dependent on compliance with sub-rule (3) by the tenant. the payment or deposit of rent under section 11 read with sub-rule (6) of rule 5..........of the transaction. without prejudice to his other rights to recover from his principal the tax or taxes paid by him on behalf of the principal such agent may retain out of any moneys payable to the principal by the agent a sum equal to the amount of the tax or taxes assessed on or paid by the agent. the principal on whose behalf the agent has paid the tax or taxes as aforesaid shall not again be taxed in respect of the same transaction but the burden of proving that the tax in respect of the transaction has been paid to the agent shall be on such principal.3. it is plain that under this proviso, it is the principal who is exempt and not the agent; he is bound to pay the tax although he is at liberty to recover it from his principal.4. the petitioner is not entitled to the exemption.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Bhimasankaram, J.

1. In these two writ petitions, the petitioner is the same. One petition relates to the sales tax to which the petitioner was assessed for the year 1956-57 and the other to the tax for the year 1955-56. The petitioner is a firm doing the business of commission agency in hides and skins and holds a licence under Section 9 of the Hyderabad General Sales Tax Act, 1950.

2. The main point raised in these petitions is that under the proviso to Section 9 of the Act an agent is not liable to the tax. The proviso to Section 9 so far as it is material is in these terms :

Provided that-

(i) in the case of an agent who carries on such business (buying or selling on behalf of known principals for agreed commission or brokerage) in the Hyderabad State on behalf of a principal who is a resident of the Hyderabad State, the agent shall be assessed to the tax or taxes leviable under this Act in respect of the transaction. Without prejudice to his other rights to recover from his principal the tax or taxes paid by him on behalf of the principal such agent may retain out of any moneys payable to the principal by the agent a sum equal to the amount of the tax or taxes assessed on or paid by the agent. The principal on whose behalf the agent has paid the tax or taxes as aforesaid shall not again be taxed in respect of the same transaction but the burden of proving that the tax in respect of the transaction has been paid to the agent shall be on such principal.

3. It is plain that under this proviso, it is the principal who is exempt and not the agent; he is bound to pay the tax although he is at liberty to recover it from his principal.

4. The petitioner is not entitled to the exemption claimed. The levy is perfectly valid. The writ petitions are dismissed with costs in W.P. No. 1278 of 1957. Advocate's fee Rs. 100.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //