MAKHANLAL BRIJ MOHANLAL KHERLI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS a similar point is involved in the above mentioned two reference petitions, they will be disposed of by this common order. These reference petitions arise out of my order dated the 15th March, 1965, whereby I rejected the revision petitions filed by the applicants against the order of the Deputy Commissioner Excise & Taxation Appeals dated 30-7-1962 in respect of the turn over of oil seeds on the ground that the assessees had failed to prove that they had acted as agents on behalf of outside principals.

(2.) THE contention of the assessees was that the transactions were not inter-State sales but had been entered into by them as agents of outside principals. During the course of the arguments in the revision petitions, the learned counsel for the petitioners had drawn my attention to Pannalal Babulal vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax U. P. Lucknow (Volume VII 1956 Sales-Tax Cases 722 ). It was held therein that if the relationship of agent and principal could be established between the parties the assessee would not be liable to inter-State Sales Tax. This authority was followed subsequently by my learned colleague Shri Gajendra Singh in M/s. Shiamlal Radhakishan vs. the State of Rajasthan, decided on 7-2-1964. It was observed by the learned Member that the only point for determination was whether the subordinate authorities had rightly determined that the despatch of goods by the petitioners outside Rajasthan constituted the sale of oil seeds, thus making the petitioners liable to inter-State Sales Tax or whether it was only in the nature of supply of goods by an agent to his principal in pursuance of a contract or agency. It was held by him that the relationship of a principal and an agent depended on the terms of the agreement executed between the parties and could be implied or inferred from the circumstances of the transaction. If the goods were transferred at the purchase price and only commission was charged, then it was clearly a case of the agent supplying the goods to the principal in the discharge of his duties as an agent, but in case the goods were supplied by the petitioners at a premium, it would naturally lead to an inference that the goods were sold to the outside merchants for a price and thus they would attract the provisions of the law relating to inter-State sales. Endorsing this criterion I added that the onus to prove that the relationship of agent and principal existed between the parties lay squarely on the assessees who claimed the benefit of this relationship.