THOLASI VENKATAMUNUSWAMY CHETTY Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER CHITTOOR
LAWS(APH)-1972-11-7
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on November 15,1972

THOLASI VENKATAMUNUSWAMY CHETTY Appellant
VERSUS
COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, CHITTOOR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) These writ petitions involve a common question for determination and hence they may be conveniently disposed of by a single judgment. All the petitioners are commission agents. They sell jaggery which was entrusted to them by their principals who are agriculturists and who grow sugar-cane which is converted into jaggery.
(2.) It is now settled law that the commission agent is liable to pay sales-tax only if his principal is liable. In all these cases the petitioners allege that their principals are not liable to pay sales tax as they do not carry on any business in jaggery. It is stated that their principals grow sugarcane in their own lands merely to derive agricultural income and that in order to convert it into a marketable commodity not liable to speedy deterioration and easy of transport, they convert their own sugarcane into jaggery for the purpose of deriving their agricultural income and not with the object of carrying on any business. It is, therefore, urged that as their principals are not liable to pay sales-tax, they are also not liable Tn some of the above writ petitions, the petitioners paid the tax to the authorities and hence they prayed for quashing the assessment orders and consequential refund of the amounts. ere are some other writ petitions in which assessments are sought to be quashed, but no appeals were filed by the assessees. There is yet another category in which the assessees prayed for a writ of prohibition restraining the authorities from proceeding with the assessments.
(3.) As the assessees raised the question as regards the validity of Explanation II of Section "2(1) (e) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, these writ petitions have been entertained by this Court instead of directing the assessees to seek their remedies under the Act On behalf of the assessaes Sri T K Sampath, Sri E Manohar Sri I. V. Rangacharya and Sri S Dasaradha Rami Reddv, addressed arguments raising the following contentions :- Explanation I[ which was added by the Andhra Pradesh Amending Act 16 of 1963 to section 2(l)(e) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 which defines a 'dealer is void on the ground of repugnancy being opposed to the main definition. Even if the Explanation is to be regarded as valid, it is still necessary to prove that the person is a dealer doing "business" as defined in Section 2(1) (bbb). For this purpose, it is pointed out that the taxing authorities should take evidence to find out whether any particular grower is carrying on business in jaggery.;


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