RAMESWAR AGARWALLA Vs. STATE AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS rule was issued on the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, and the opposite party to show cause why the proceedings now pending against the petitioner under sections 22(1)(a) and 22(1)(g) of the Bengal Finance Sales Tax Act of 1941 should not be quashed.

(2.) AS regards the proceedings under section 22(1)(a) of the Act it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that whatever business was carried on - whether in contravention of provisions of section 7(1) of the Act, or not - was carried on by the Calcutta Woollen Agency Ltd. and not by him personally. Section 7(1) provides that no dealer shall, while being liable to pay tax (under section 4 of this Act) carry on business as a dealer unless he had been registered and possesses a registration certificate.

(3.) IT may or may not be that he takes a leading part in the business but, in our opinion, neither he nor any of the other shareholders can be considered to be the "dealer". It is the company which is the dealer within the meaning of sections 4, 7 and 21 of the Act. If the company has carried on business in contravention of section 7(1) of the Act it will be open to the authorities to start proceedings against the company. The present proceedings under section 22(1)(a) against Rameswar Agarwalla must however be quashed, as clearly he is not a "dealer" who carried on business.