Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.19 seconds)Kandula Radhakrishna Rao And Ors. vs The Province Of Madras Represented By ... on 16 November, 1951
13. Of course we have to point out that the order of the Appellate Tribunal, the clauses embodied in the agreement and the point that the assessee was in possession of the goods and the assessee was having the right of passing of title in the goods had not been considered at all and it merely misguided by relying upon the goods purchased by the assessee and subsequently despatched to the Universal Radiators Ltd., Coimbatore alone were considered on the wrong footing as if the assessee was a sole agent of the ultimate buyer. Perhaps if the decisions reported in [1976] 37 STC 73 (Bagal Kot Cement Co. v. State of Mysore) and the Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court in [1952] 3 STC 121 (Kandula Radhakrishna Rao v. Province of Madras) had been brought to the notice of the Appellate Tribunal, the result would have been otherwise. Bearing all these facts in mind, we could very well interfere with the common order of the Tribunal as it erred in arriving at a conclusion as a procurement agency only, without properly appreciating the clauses in the agreement, but actually as per the available materials the assessee had right to dispose of the goods, arid further there are two transactions out of which the second one is also liable to tax and thereby we could interfere within the findings of the Appellate Tribunal. Hence the order of the Tribunal is hereby set aside and the order of first appellate authority which confirmed the order of the assessing authority is restored. Hence the assessee is liable to pay tax for (second transaction) on a turnover of Rs. 19,41,609 at the rate of 5 per cent (multi-point) and consequently liable to pay surcharge, additional surcharge and additional sales tax as ordered by the first appellate authority. In the result, the tax revision petitions are allowed.
Peninsular Traders, Perumbavoor And ... vs Dy. Commissioner, Sales Tax (Law), ... on 31 July, 1997
The counsel for the appellant in support of the contention cited another decision in Peninsular Traders v. Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax (Law), Kerala, reported in [1998] 108 STC 575 (SC). In the cited decision the assessee was the sole distributor of the company for the chemicals namely trisodium phosphate manufactured by the said company which entrusted with the agent as a sole agent, and the price was also fixed by the company only from time to time. In the cited case, the title in the unsold chemicals would not pass on to the agent. Here in our case as already stated above, the assessee is not the sole agent and the assessee could purchase goods on the account of the principal as well as for third parties by purchasing goods out of his own funds, and goods were in possession of the assessee by keeping them in the godown of the assessee, and only on subsequent days the assessee passed on the goods or sold to the ultimate buyer to Coimbatore who paid the consideration only after receipt of the goods. So the goods was purchased by the assessee from the seller who passed on to the assessee at its inception and thereafter the said goods was sold to the ultimate buyer or to third parties and thereby the other goods which were not passed on to the ultimate buyer were only with the assessee as an owner. So the facts of the cited case entirely different from the facts of this case and hence not applicable to the facts of this case.
Bagal Kot Cement Co vs State Of Mysore on 27 November, 1975
13. Of course we have to point out that the order of the Appellate Tribunal, the clauses embodied in the agreement and the point that the assessee was in possession of the goods and the assessee was having the right of passing of title in the goods had not been considered at all and it merely misguided by relying upon the goods purchased by the assessee and subsequently despatched to the Universal Radiators Ltd., Coimbatore alone were considered on the wrong footing as if the assessee was a sole agent of the ultimate buyer. Perhaps if the decisions reported in [1976] 37 STC 73 (Bagal Kot Cement Co. v. State of Mysore) and the Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court in [1952] 3 STC 121 (Kandula Radhakrishna Rao v. Province of Madras) had been brought to the notice of the Appellate Tribunal, the result would have been otherwise. Bearing all these facts in mind, we could very well interfere with the common order of the Tribunal as it erred in arriving at a conclusion as a procurement agency only, without properly appreciating the clauses in the agreement, but actually as per the available materials the assessee had right to dispose of the goods, arid further there are two transactions out of which the second one is also liable to tax and thereby we could interfere within the findings of the Appellate Tribunal. Hence the order of the Tribunal is hereby set aside and the order of first appellate authority which confirmed the order of the assessing authority is restored. Hence the assessee is liable to pay tax for (second transaction) on a turnover of Rs. 19,41,609 at the rate of 5 per cent (multi-point) and consequently liable to pay surcharge, additional surcharge and additional sales tax as ordered by the first appellate authority. In the result, the tax revision petitions are allowed.
Maganbhai vs Chetanlal on 10 May, 1967
10. The counsel for the respondent contended that the assessee acted only as a procurement agent without any right of disposal of the goods and hence it is not a dealer as defined under Section 2(g) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and in support of his contention he cited a decision Maganbhai v. Chetanlal reported in AIR 1968 Raj 81. In the cited decision it was a suit for ejectment and for arrears of rent arising under contract under Section 231 and hence it was held that the principal could enforce the contract entered into by his agent as the principal was also a party (plaintiff) in the said suit. Here we are concerned whether the agent could come under the definition of "dealer" as defined under Section 2(g) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and to find out whether the agent has the right of disposal of the goods. So the facts of the case cited is no way applicable to the facts of this case.
The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956
1