SUBBAN BEIGH Vs. GOVERNMENT OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case the petitioner has been convicted for non-payment of sales tax in accordance with the demand notice served on him.

(2.) THE main contention of the petitioner is that he is a commission agent not liable to pay sales tax. It is, on the other hand, contended that under Section 22 of the Sales Tax Act, no order passed under Act or the rules made thereunder by any assessing authority shall be called in question except in the manner provided by the Act itself. While it can be said that if the assessment is one made under the provisions of the Sales Tax Act, the correctness of the order cannot be questioned in any civil or criminal court, it is clear that if the assessment is found to be not one made under the Act, there is no bar in Section 22 of the Act prohibiting civil or criminal courts from considering the correctness of the order as that section refers only to an assessment made under the Act.

(3.) IF a commission agent can be said to be a dealer there is hardly any doubt that he is liable to pay tax on his total turnover for each financial year subject to the provisions of the Act. As already noticed before a person can be said to be a dealer, he must be carrying on business of buying and selling goods and by sales transfer of property in goods by one person to another in contemplated. The contention that a commission agent helps the owner of the goods in transferring his the goods cannot transfer any such right to any one else and that he cannot therefore be held to be a dealer deserves consideration.