SATISH CHANDRA,J. - (1.) FOR the asst. yr. 1963-64 the petitioner's net turnover of foodgrains and gur was determined at Rs.
(2.) ,40,000 and was subjected to purchase tax under S. 3D(1) of the U.P. ST Act. The petitioner filed an appeal against this assessment order. It was pleaded that the petitioner was a Kachcha Arhatiya. He had no authority to sell. He was not a dealer within meaning of the UP ST Act and hence he was not liable to purchase tax on the turnover of foodgrains or gur. The Judge (Appeals) dealt with this point as follows :- "The first points passed before me by the learned counsel for the appellant was that they had not done any business on personal account and assessment on Kachcha Arhat business was unsustainable. This contention, after the latest amendment in the definition of 'dealer' cannot be accepted. The goods were brought by the principals to the shop of the appellant for sale, the appellant found purchasers for these goods, issued purchase in their own name, and generally also paid the price to the principals even before the same was recovered from the purchasers. All these facts are ample proof of the fact that arhat sales in question were made through the appellant and it is what the law now requires to make an agent, by whatever name he may call himself, dealer under the Act". 2. The Judge (Appeals) were referring to the amendment of the definition of the term 'dealer's in s. 2(c) of the Act affected from 1st Oct., 1961. This amendment added an explanation under which a Kachcha Arhatiya through whom goods are sold or purchased is deemed to be a dealer for the purposes of the Act. The facts found by the Judge (Appeals) were not challenged by the petitioner either in his grounds taken in the memorandum of revision or at the hearing of the revisions. The Judge (Revisions) appears to have repelled the claim of the petitioner that he was not liable to tax because he was only a Kachcha Arhatiya. He, however, remanded the case to the Judge (Appeals) for finding out the 'dami' charges taken by the petitioner. The Judge (Appeals) found that the petitioner's turnover of 'dami' charges was Rs. 2,11,671 and that the petitioner was liable to be assessed to tax on this amount. The petitioner again filed a revision.
(3.) AT the hearing of the revision reliance was placed on behalf of the petitioner upon the decision of this Court in Bishamber Singh Laiq Ram vs. CST 1972 UPTC 742. In that case it was held that if a Kachcha Arhatiya did not have the authority to sell on behalf of his principals he could not be deemed to be dealer liable to pay purchase tax. The Judge (Revisions) held that if the assessee can avail of any relief, as the law had changed, he can move an application for amendment in the previous revision by which the case was remanded to the Judge (Appeals). He did not go into this question while hearing the revision filed subsequently. The revision was dismissed. Aggrieved, the petitioner has come to this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution.;