1. In these batch of cases the point raised is that the petitioners are not dealers but are only commission agents and that the Courts below have proceeded on the basis that the petitioners are dealers and are not commission agents. Section 8, General Sales-tax Act, clear-ly lays the burden on the petitioners to prove that they were commission agents and not dealers. A perusal of the judgments of the Courts below does not disclose that the petitioners have taken care to prove to the satisfaction of the Courts below that they were commission agents and not dealers. When they have not proved according, to the requirements of Section 8, General Sales-tax Act, that they were commission agents, then it cannot be contended that the lower Courts have gone wrong in holding that the petitioners have been merely dealers and applying the law that was then understood to be a correct one.
2. I find that the decision in the Public Prosecutor v. Narasimha, Reddi : (1947)2MLJ220 has been referred to by the learned. District Judge. After this decision there was another decision in the Provincial Government of Madras v. Veerabadrappa, 1950 1 M.L. J. 564 in which the earlier view of another Bench reported in Province of Madras v. Firm of Kant. golla, Sivalakshminarayana : (1949)1MLJ530 has not been agreed to by the Bench. I am inclined to hold the view that if the petitioners had succeeded in proving that they were not dealers but were only commission agents, then certainly the tax was not legitimately leviable against them and the claim of the assessing authorities would not be tenable. But, unfortunately for the petitioners in this case, they have not succeeded in proving that they werecommission agents and not dealers. To prove that they were connmsaion agents they would have had to satisfy many requirements that are prescribed in Section 8. I do not find anywhere in the judgments or in the evidence that has been read out to me that the petitioners come within the scope of Section 8, General Sales-tax Act, nobwitbstandicg the fact that they did not obtain licence from the Government for the purpose of earrj ing on the agency business. If at least theie was evidence to the effect that they were acting as commission agents for a fixed remuneration and were at least maintaining accounts of the transactions, then certainly there would have been some material for the Courts below to go upon and decide that the petitioners were not really dealers but were merely commission agents. In the absence of any such evidence, I do not think that there is any case made out against the judgments of the Courts below. I therefore bold that what the Courts below have decided is correct and there are no merits in these petitions. The petitions are then fore dismissed.