DINANATH MAHADEO DALAL OF NAGPUR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant asked for exemption from taxation on the ground that he dealt exclusively in handloom cloth. Enquiry showed that on one occasion (during the period 1st June, 1947, to 10th April, 1949) he had dealt in mill-made cloth and the exemption asked for was, therefore, refused. It has been argued on his behalf that as he held no licence for selling mill-cloth, he could not be considered as having dealt in such cloth. The record does not throw much light on the point raised, except for some statements contained in a letter which the appellant wrote to the Sales Tax Commissioner on 15th June, 1950. From this it would appear that on an order received from a vyapari (trader or businessman), the appellant bought for him some mill-cloth, spending his own money, which of course he later recovered from him, together with adat at one-half per cent (0-8-0 per hundred rupees). Mention may also be made of a report submitted to the Commissioner on the 29th April, 1950, by the Sales Tax Officer in which the following occurs :-

(2.) IN referring to transactions of the nature described in the preceding paragraph, it seems advisable to avoid the use of the expression "commission agent"; because under Section 2(c) of the Act, a "person who.....as.....agent, carries on......the business of selling or supplying goods.......for commission..." comes under the definition of "dealer". If the expression "commission agent" is to be confined to a person just described, it should be clear that it cannot apply to a person like the appellant, if we are to go by such facts about him as can be elicited from the record. For, he does not carry on any business of selling or supplying goods; he is hardly more than an intermediary between the seller or supplier on the one hand and the buyer on the other. For the services he renders as such intermediary, be recovers his remuneration either from one or both of parties. To distinguish him from the "commission agent" included in the definition in Section 2(c), he could perhaps be simply called as a broker and his remuneration as brokerage. At any rate, the view urged by counsel on both sides that a person, acting as a broker and recovering only his brokerage, is not a dealer is correct.