UNION LEATHER COMPANY Vs. STATE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Order of the Court was made by RAJAGOPALAN, J. Before the Tribunal the petitioner-assessee denied his liability to be taxed on a turnover of Rs. 11, 80, 893-7-7. That plea failed. This sum was made up of two items, (1) Rs. 11, 65, 268-9-9, which represented the turnover in the sales of hides and skins, which belonged to principals not resident within the State of Madras, and (2) Rs. 15, 624-13-10, which represented the turnover of sales of hides and skins which belonged to resident principals. THE assessee acted as the agent for both sets of principals when he sold the tanned hides and skins. We are really concerned at this stage with the liability of the petitioner to be taxed on the first item of the turnover, Rs. 11, 65, 268-9-9. As we said, the tanned hides and skins, which the assessee sold, belonged to principals, who were not residents within the State of Madras, and the assessee was their agent.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner-assessee contended that the petitioner was not liable to be taxed on this turnover. Two contentions were put forward : (1) rule 16(4) under which the petitioner was taxed was ultra vires, as it was in conflict with Article 304 of the Contention and (2) since the goods belonged to non-resident principals, and those principals themselves were not licensed dealers, and further since rule 16(4) made only transactions of licensed dealers taxable, the petitioner as an agent of unlincensed dealers could not have been taxed when the principals themselves could not have been taxed.

(3.) IN this case, as we said, that the petitioner was a licensed dealer was never in issue. What section 14-A(1) declared was that the agent should be deemed to be a dealer. The further requirement of rule 16(4) of the rules was that he should be a licensed dealer. Both these conditions were satisfied in the case of the assessee. That the non-resident dealer could not have been taxed direct does not really affect the liability of the petitioner, the liability regulated by section 14-A(1) to which will have to be added the provisions of rule 16(4) of the (Turnover and Assessment) Rules.The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to INdia Coffee and Tea Distributing Co., Ltd., Madras v. State of Madras But that referred only to the ultimate and economic incidence of the tax on the non-resident principal. That should be made clear by sub-section (3) of section 14-A, which gives the agent of the non-resident principal a statutory right to recover from that principal whatever that has been collected under the provisions of the Act from the resident agent. Neither the terms of section 14-A nor the principle laid down in the INdia Coffee Board's case supports the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that since in this case the non-resident principal could not have been taxed on the turnover, the agent could not be taxed at all.