BAGALKOT CEMENT CO LIMITED Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition preferred by the assessee under section 23(1) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, read with section 9(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, as it stood before its amendment made in 1969. The assessee is the Bagalkot Cement Company Ltd., hereinafter called the company. The assessment relates to the assessment year 1961-62. During the said year, the turnover of cement in inter-State sales amounted to Rs. 1,11,02,243 on which the company was assessed to sales tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, hereinafter called the Act. The assessment was made on the basis of the return submitted by the company to the Commercial Tax Officer. The company preferred an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes wherein it urged that the company is not liable to be assessed to tax under the Act since the sales were effected by the company as the agent of the State Trading Corporation. The Deputy Commissioner found that the company was appointed by the State Trading Corporation as its selling agent and it has sold cement at the prices specified in the Cement Control Order to the customers who held permits from the Government authorities and that the customers have purchased the cement from the company directly and they were not even aware of the identity of the principal, namely, the State Trading Corporation. On the said facts, the Deputy Commissioner held that the company is a dealer carrying on the business of selling goods and as such liable to tax under the Act.

(2.) The company preferred a second appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. Before the Tribunal also the same contention was urged. The Tribunal held that the appellant carried on the business of selling cement and therefore was a dealer liable to tax under the Act. The Tribunal further observed that the Act empowered the assessing authority to tax either the principal or the agent through whom the principal carried on the business. In the result, the Tribunal dismissed the company's appeal.

(3.) In this revision petition, Sri K. Srinivasan, the learned counsel for the petitioner advanced the same argument, viz., that a person who carries on the business of buying or selling goods as an agent of another person is not liable to be taxed under the Act. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel relied on the definition of the words "dealer" and "place of business" found in section 2(b) and 2(d) of the Act. The learned counsel also invited our attention to the definition of the word "dealer" found in section 2(1)(k) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, wherein the word "dealer" has been defined to include a commission agent also.