BAGAL KOT CEMENT CO Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal by special leave the question for determination is whether the appellant company is a dealer within the meaning of Sec. 2(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - hereinafter referred to as the Central Act, liable to pay sales tax thereunder.

(2.) The appellant, Bagal Kot Cement Co. Ltd., is a manufacturer of cement. For the period 1st April, 1961 to 31st March, 1962 it filed a Return before the Assessing Authority showing a total turnover of Rupees 1,11,02,243/-. The entire sum was shown as taxable turn-over on which an amount of Rs.2,25,317.55 had been collected and paid as tax. No claim was made on behalf of the appellant before the Assessing Authority that it was not liable to pay any sales tax. The Authority accepted the Return and assessed the tax as per the appellant's figure. It appears the appellant was advised thereafter to file an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and take the stand that in respect of the transactions in question it was not a dealer and was not liable to pay any tax. The Deputy Commissioner dismissed the appeal. A second appeal filed by the appellant before the Mysore Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal also failed. The company took up the matter in revision to the High Court under Section 23 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - hereinafter called the State Act, read with Section 9 (2) of the Central Act. The High Court dismissed the revision. Hence this appeal.

(3.) Under the Cement Control Orders, 1958 and 1961 the appellant was bound to sell the entire quantity of cement to the State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. By an agreement executed between the parties the Corporation appointed the Company as its selling agent for sale of cement to different customers on its behalf at the controlled price and in accordance with the instructions which may be given from time to time by the Corporation. Pursuant to the agreement the company made the inter-State sales and realized sales tax from the customers under the Central Act. Its contention is that being an agent and having effected all the sales under its direction it was not a dealer as defined in Section 2 (b) of the Central Act and hence was not liable to pay any sales tax thereunder. The liability was of the Corporation.