Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.75 seconds)
Documents citing The Province Of Madras vs The Firm Of Kanigolla ... on 4 February, 1949

Subban Beigh vs Government Of Mysore, By Assistant ... on 14 August, 1952

4. The point whether a commission agent is a dealer within the meaning of the word as used in the Sales Tax Act came up for consideration in three cases before the High Court of Madras. There was a conflict of opinion on the point between the Division Benches of that Court, in the case reported in -- 'Province of Madras v. Sivalaksbminarayana', ILR (1950) Mad 421 and -- 'Provincial Government of Madras v. Veerabhadrappa', ILR (1951) Mad. 257.
Karnataka High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Kandula Radhakrishna Rao And Ors. vs The Province Of Madras Represented By ... on 16 November, 1951

On the whole the impression left on me as a result of the evidence is that these amounts were not considered by any party, either the seller or the buyer or the commission agent, as part of the price. In effect the evidence is that the commission agent obtained a remuneration both from the seller and the buyer and this was in accordance with the mercantile usage. It is as if the agreement between the parties was that the commission agent should get a particular amount from the seller and another amount from the buyer as his commission. There is nothing either in the decision in the 'Province of Madras v. Firm of Kanigoda Sivalakakshminarayana', ILR (1950) Mad.
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 45 - Full Document

The Provincial Government Of Madras, ... vs Neeli Veerabhadrappa And Ors. on 25 February, 1950

I am of the opinion that a commission agent or any other agent who buys and sells goods on behalf of his principal as a mere agent, was never caught in the net of taxation by Section 3 and therefore did not require to be set free by Section 8. Section 8 is not a charging section but an exempting section and it is not permissible to infer or imply a liability to tax from Section 8 when Section 3, the charging section, does not impose the burden. I am also unable with great respect, to understand why a broker or commission agent who gets a commission or brokerage both from the buyer and the seller of the goods at the same time and in respect of the same transaction should lose the benefit of Section 8, as suggested by the learned Judge, even if such a broker or commission agent were liable to be treated as a "dealer" which, I have held he is not, a brokerage or commission taken from the seller and buyer of goods with the knowledge of both is nonetheless an "agreed commission." Mack J. who was also a party to the above decision with Govinda Menon J. rested his conclusion entirely on an interpretation of Section 8 of the Act, the implication being that commission agents would be chargeable to sales tax but for the exemption in Section 8. The learned Judge observed :
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Kunala Subbarao And Anr. vs Padam Nagaratnayamma on 7 February, 1994

14. The learned counsel for the 1st defendant on the other hand, argues that a reading of Clause 6 of Ex.A-1 clearly establishes that it did not impose any obligation on the 1st defendant to pay the licence fees and that the expression 'rusum' in the said clause has to be understood in the context in which it is used i.e., "if the Government imposes any penalties or additional 'rusums' all those will have to be borne by the second party (1st defendant) without reference to the first party (the plaintiff)". He relies on Venkataramaiya's Law Lexicon (2nd Edition, Volume-Ill) wherein referring to the decision of the High Court in Province of Madras v. Firm of Kanigolla Sivalakshminarayana, AIR 1949 Mad. 843 the meaning of the Urdu word 'rusum' is given as custom, settled mode or fees, duties, taxes etc., and submits that the said Clause 6 only imposed a obligation on the 1st defendant to pay penalties and additional taxes that may be imposed, by the Government and that cannot be read as referring to licence fee for renewal of the licence because that is neither a penalty nor an additional tax. He therefore submits that no case has been made out for allowing Tr.A.S.No. 1653 of 1984.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

In Re: M. Velu Konar And Ors. vs Unknown on 19 April, 1951

JJ. Jour, 564 in which the earlier view of another Bench reported in Province of Madras v. Firm of Kant. golla, Sivalakshminarayana 1949-1 Mad. L. Jour. 530 has not been agreed to by the Bench. I am inclined to hold the view that if the petitioners had succeeded in proving that they were not dealers but were only commission agents, then certainly the tax was not legitimately leviable against them and the claim of the assessing authorities would not be tenable. But, unfortunately for the petitioners in this case, they have not succeeded in proving that they were commission agents and not dealers. To prove that they were connmsaion agents they would have had to satisfy many requirements that are prescribed in Section 8. I do not find anywhere in the judgments or in the evidence that has been read out to me that the petitioners come within the scope of Section 8, General Sales-tax Act, nobwitbstandicg the fact that they did not obtain licence from the Government for the purpose of earrj ing on the agency business. If at least theie was evidence to the effect that they were acting as commission agents for a fixed remuneration and were at least maintaining accounts of the transactions, then certainly there would have been some material for the Courts below to go upon and decide that the petitioners were not really dealers but were merely commission agents. In the absence of any such evidence, I do not think that there is any case made out against the judgments of the Courts below. I therefore bold that what the Courts below have decided is correct and there are no merits in these petitions. The petitions are then fore dismissed.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1