C S NARASIAH Vs. PROVINCE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the decree and judgment of the District Judge of Anantapur in O.S. No. 27 of 1948, a suit filed by the appellants for the declaration that the assessment of the plaintiffs to pay Rs. 9, 046-7-11 as sales tax is illegal and void. The plaintiffs are merchants carrying on the business of commission agency in the village of Thimmancherla in Guntakkal. From 1st April, 1944, to 8th December, 1944, they showed a turnover of Rs. 8, 61, 243-14-7 and from 9th December, 1944, to 31st March, 1945, the turnover was Rs. 7, 18, 276-4-6. In regard to the turnover for the first period, the plaintiffs' contention is that they were exempted from taxation as they must be deemed to have had a licence under Section 8 of the Act for that period. In regard to the second period, the Board of Revenue gave them exemption in respect of Rs. 5, 45, 146 and odd. Out of the balance, in regard to Rs. 77, 143-11-3 it is conceded that it related to independent dealings. It is also not disputed that a turnover of a sum of Rs. 6, 534 representing dealings with non-resident principals is also liable to tax. The result is that the appellants question the validity of the tax in respect of Rs. 75, 380-14-0 for the second period.

(2.) IN regard to the first period, i.e., from 1st April, 1944, to 8th December, 1944, it is conceded that no licence has, as a matter of fact, been issued to the plaintiffs under Section 8 of the Act. But it is contended that a sum of Rs. 20 was paid as licence fee in March, 1944, and another sum of Rs. 130 in May, 1944, and that therefore, at any rate, from May, 1944, it must be held that they had a licence under Section 8 of the Act. Rule 6(3) of the Sales Tax Rules governs the situation. It reads :-

(3.) EVEN so, learned counsel for the appellants contended that in view of the later decisions there is a distinction between an agent, who is a dealer, and one who is only a broker, in the sense he brings the two contracting parties together, and that in this case his clients are only brokers. But this aspect of the case was not raised anywhere in the pleadings. It was not even argued before the learned Judge. This argument has been inspired only by the judgment of the Full Bench in Radhakrishna v. Province of Madras. The plaintiffs proceeded on the basis that they were dealers but that they were exempted by reason of the licence issued under Section 8 of the Act.Coming to the second period, learned counsel argued that amounts collected by the plaintiffs towards mamul, charity, rusum etc., should be exempted from sales tax on the ground that they formed part of the agreed commission. The plaintiffs' case is that they were collecting the miscellaneous charges and designated them for entertainment of customers, for bakshis to servants, and others, and for station expenses, etc that under the heading, Vidyarthi they collected amounts and paid them over to the Guntakkal High School and that the amount collected under the heading rusum was paid over to the Kanyakaparameswari temple.