Skip to content


The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Madurai Vs. A. Anantharama Nadar and Sons Merchants, Teppam South, Virudhunagar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberTax Case No. 208 of 1965 (Ref. 102)
Judge
Reported inAIR1970Mad314; [1970]25STC276(Mad)
ActsMadras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 - Sections 2
AppellantThe Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Madurai
RespondentA. Anantharama Nadar and Sons Merchants, Teppam South, Virudhunagar
Advocates:K. Venkataswami, Asst. Govt. Pleader
DispositionRevision allowed
Cases ReferredState of Madras v. T.C.M. Society Ltd..
Excerpt:
company - winding up - sections 166 and 235 of indian companies act, 1913, companies act, 1956 and sections 406, 542 and 543 of indian companies act, 1955 - applicant sought re-enquiry into allegation of malpractice by directors of company - enquiry had been directed previously disregarding conditions under section 543 - applicant who elected to accept said direction not entitled to seek re-enquiry under section 543 - applicant competent to seek remedies before government if maladministration of directors proved - no reason to order re-enquiry - application dismissed. - .....produce. but the bills issued by the as-sessee unmistakably point to the fact that he had sold the produce in his own right, and as a commission agent, on behalf of his principal who grew the produce. the tribunal allowed the exclusion of the turnover in the hands of the assessee on the view that since the assessee sold as an agent of the cultivator, the benefit was available to the agent also. the error committed by the tribunal lay in the assumption that the assessee was a mere agent, who would not be within the scope of the definition of a dealer. a dealer, as defined, includes also a commission agent who, unlike an agent, has the property in the goods sold by him and effects sales in his own right, on behalf of disclosed or undisclosed principals. 3. 'turnover' as defined by.....
Judgment:

Veeraswami, C.J.

1. We are of the view that State of Madras v. T.C.M. Society Ltd.. (1865) 16 STC 760 (Mad) has been correctly decided. One of us was a party to the reference, which was made on the view that if the person, who sold the agricultural produce, did so as an agent simpliciter, the proceeds of sale would not be liable to charge under the Act, That of course is true. But where the agent himself, as a Commission Agent, is also a dealer, on a strict reading of the proviso to Section 2 (r). he would not be entitled to the exclusion from the turnover of sales of agricultural produce, unless he had himself grown the produce on his own land or on land in which he had an interest.

2. There is no dispute here that the assesses for the year 1961-62 was a dealer in chillies; nor is there any dispute that the turnover in dispute, namely. Rupees 63,743-80 represented sales of agricultural produce. But the bills issued by the as-sessee unmistakably point to the fact that he had sold the produce in his own right, and as a commission agent, on behalf of his principal who grew the produce. The Tribunal allowed the exclusion of the turnover in the hands of the assessee on the view that since the assessee sold as an agent of the cultivator, the benefit was available to the agent also. The error committed by the Tribunal lay in the assumption that the assessee was a mere agent, who would not be within the scope of the definition of a dealer. A dealer, as defined, includes also a commission agent who, unlike an agent, has the property in the goods sold by him and effects sales in his own right, on behalf of disclosed or undisclosed principals.

3. 'Turnover' as defined by Section 2 (r) is relatable to the sales effected by a dealer and the proviso should naturally be taken to be concerned with the turnover in his hands and this is also clear from the language of the proviso itself. The word 'himself' in the proviso does refer to a dealer in the first part of the definition of the turnover. This is the reasoning in (1965) 16 STC 760 (Mad), also which commends itself to us. We also agree with the learned Judges in (1965) 16 STC 760 (Mad) that the analogy of Section 14-A will not be of any assistance in interpreting the proviso to Section 2 (r).

4. The tax revision case is accordingly allowed with costs Rs. 100.


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