Decided on April 22,1953



Balakrishna Ayyar, J. - (1.) During the year 1948-1949 the petitioner Pappanna Rowther manufactured various quantities of Jaggery which he consigned to Kathar Nadar and Co., Madura. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that Kathar Nadar was only a commission agent, that there was no sale by Pappanna Rowther of the jaggery that he produced to Kathar Nadar and that there was only one sale, name-ly, by Kathar Nadar, to outsiders. The petitioner failed to submit for the year 1948-1949 the "A" return prescribed by rules 6 and 11 of the General Sales-tax (Turnover and Assessment Rules) before 1st April 1949. For this omission, he was prosecuted and convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 190 by the Additional First Class Magistrate, Dindigul.
(2.) It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that Kathar Nadar and Co. had included all the transactions of the petitioner in their turnover, and therefore, the petitioner Pappanna Rowther was not bound to submit the return. This argument cannot be accepted, in the General Sales-tax Act the word "dealer" is defined as meaning "any person who carries on business of buying or selling". It will be noticed that the word used is "or" and not "and", and that a person will be a dealer within the meaning of the Act who keeps on selling goods even though he does not buy any. In the present case, it is admitted that Pappanna. Rowther did send a number of consignments of Jaggery to Kathar Nadar and Co. But it was argued that as it was Kathar Nadar and Co. which had effected the sales, there was no sale by Pappanna Rowther and so he was not bound to submit the return. This argument does not appear to be sound. A person may directly sell himself or through an employee or through a commission agent or through other means. The nature of the machinery that he employs is immaterial, so long as he does sell the goods. In this case there can be no escape from the fact that the jaggery of Pappanna Rowther was sold. Whether Kathar Nadar was an agent of Pappanna Rowther or only a commission agent makes no difference. The material fact was that through the machinery of Kathar Nadar the goods were sold.
(3.) It was argued that these items consigned by Pappanna Rowther had been included in the turnover of Kathar Nadar and also assessed. Granting that to be so, Pappanna Rowther was not excused from sending his return. He was bound to have sent his return, though perhaps it might have been open to him to state that it was a "nil return" by reason of the fact that all those items figure in the turnover of Kathar Nadar. The duty to send the return whether it was a nil one or not existed; and that duty not having been complied with, there was a contravention of Section 15 (a) of the Act. The conviction was right. I am not prepared to say that the sentence is so excessive as to Justify my interference.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.