HARJI RAM BALWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution arises out of the following facts. The petitioner is a partnership concern carrying on the business of sale and purchase of cotton and cotton seeds. It also runs a cotton ginning and pressing factory at Sirsa. The petitioner-firm is also a registered dealer under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act as applicable to the State of Haryana. It is stated that the cotton so obtained by the petitioner-firm was sold to the other dealers for export as inter-State trade/sale for consumption outside the State of Haryana. Some of it was sold to registered dealers carrying on business in the State of Haryana itself. During the year 1968-69, the petitioner-firm purchased cotton worth Rs. 94,00,371.29. It is stated that these purchases were made from the Kacha Arhtias, who were themselves registered dealers under the said Act. They had purchased this cotton in the State of Haryana. The Assessing Authority respondent No. 2 assessed tax under Schedule 'D' to the said Act against the petitioner firm as first purchaser on the turn over of Rs. 51,34,451.29 and purchase tax at 3 per cent amounting to Rs. 1,54,065.54 had been levied vide order dated February 27, 1976.

(2.) The principal contention on behalf of the petitioner-firm is that the Act was amended by the State of Haryana and after November 14, 1967, it was the first purchaser of declared goods like cotton who was liable to pay tax. Since the petitioner firm purchased the entire cotton during the year 1968-69 from registered dealers in Haryana and since the Assessing Authority had declined the deductions claimed by it on the ground that the cotton had been purchased through the auctioneers and the petitioner firm had paid the market fee, the assessment framed against the petitioner firm was illegal. In support of this contention reliance has been placed on a Division Bench of this Court reported as Ganesh Dal and Rice Mills V. The State of Haryana, 1975 RajdhaniLR 138, in which it was held that where a dealer purchased cotton from commission agents and ginned the same and then sent it outside the State for sale he could not be regarded as the first purchaser in the State of Haryana. I may, however, mention that in this case it was not disputed that the various commission agents who sold cotton to the petitioner firm had themselves purchased it in the first place. The material facts of the case in hand are entirely different. The Assessing Authority as a matter of fact found that the petitioner-firm itself had purchased the cotton through the agency of Kacha Arhtias. In coming to this conclusion the Assessing Authority has relied upon the circumstances that the market fee was paid by the petitioner-firm. When a purchaser of commodities goes to the market committee constituted under the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961, and makes purchases of the commodities after they are put to auction by the auctioneers who are licensed under the latter Act the burden of market fee under the provisions of the latter Act falls on the purchaser himself and the auctioneers are not called upon to pay any fee to the market committee. When a tribunal which is constituted to decide the questions of fact gives a finding on the consideration of relevant circumstances, the findings so arrived at cannot be challenged in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) It is no doubt true that under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, the word 'dealer' has been given a very wide definition and includes a Kacha Arhtia, but this was done as a measure of abundant caution so that in those cases in which a Kacha Arhtia himself purchases goods he may not be allowed to turn round and assert that in view of the peculiar nature of his profession or calling he does not fall within the definition of the word 'dealer'. In other words when a question arises whether a Kacha Arhtia associated with a particular transaction is a dealer or not the Assessing Authority has to give a finding after taking into consideration all the circumstances of the case. If the Kacha Arhtia merely lends the services to bring about a complete contract of sale without acquiring any dominion over the goods, then he cannot be regarded as a dealer, but if he himself makes the purchases of goods and acquires dominion over them he would squarely fall within the definition of the word 'dealer' and would then be regarded as the first purchaser of goods. In any case, if the petitioner-firm is dissatisfied about the findings on questions of fact arrived at by the Assessing Authority, it is open to it to challenge these findings in appeal.