KNARAYANA SETTY Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in both these cases were prosecuted under Section 20 (b), Mysore Sales Tax Act for failure to pay the tax assessed and demanded; the trial Court found them guilty and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each, with a further direction for the recovery of the tax assessed respectively against each of them.

(2.) Mr. P. Krishnappa, on behalf of the petitioners contended that the tax demanded is illegal and otherwise 'ultra vires' the Sales Tax Act. Both the petitioners are merchants dealing in cocoanuts and their defence is common. It is argued that the petitioners are taxed illegally en the turn-over basis of sales as if they were dealers in general commodities; whereas being dealers in cocoanuts, they should have been classed under the category of fruit merchants and dealt with on basis specially applicable to fruit merchants and taxed according to the rates fixed in the Government Notification issued in that behalf. In support of his contention Mr. Krishnappa relied upon the cases of this Court reported in -- 'Kariappa v. Govt. of Mysore', AIR 1953 Mys 12 (A); -- 'Venkata-chala Chetty v. Govt. of Mysore', AIR 1953 Mys 18 (B); and -- 'Subban Beigh v. Govt. of Mysore', AIR 1953 Mys 19 (C). The first of these cases relates to the question whether a merchant selling fried-gram could be brought under the purview of the Sales Tax Act; the next deals with the qualifications necessary for a "dealer" under the Sales Tax Act and the last case contains a discussion whether a commission agent is or is not a "dealer" within the definition of that term in the Act. The interpretation depends upon the particular circumstances of each case, and it does net appear to be relevant to deal with the merits of those cases for the purpose of the cases under consideration. It is however contended that the principle laid down in these cases must be adopted, as a guide lo the disposal of the present petitions. In the case reported in -- 'AIR 1953 Mys 12 (A)', it is laid down that

(3.) In -- '52 Mys CCR 455 CE)', Venkataramana Rao C.J., while citing the above Privy Council decision in connection with the consideration of the limits of jurisdiction of the Controller under the Mysore House Rent Control Act. observes thus: