In Re: M. Velu Konar and Others

In these batch of cases the point raised is that the petitioners are not dealers but are only commission agents and that the Courts below have

proceeded on the basis that the petitioners are dealers and are not commission agents. Section 8, General Sales-tax Act, clear-ly lays the burden

on the petitioners to prove that they were commission agents and not dealers. A perusal of the judgments of the Courts below does not disclose

that the petitioners have taken care to prove to the satisfaction of the Courts below that they were commission agents and not dealers. When they

have not proved according, to the requirements of Section 8, General Sales-tax Act, that they were commission agents, then it cannot be

contended that the lower Courts have gone wrong in holding that the petitioners have been merely dealers and applying the law that was then

understood to be a correct one.

I find that the decision in the The Public Prosecutor Vs. R.T. Narasimha Reddy, has been referred to by the learned. District Judge. After this

decision there was another decision in the Provincial Government of Madras v. Veerabadrappa, 1950 1 M.L. J. 564 in which the earlier view of

another Bench reported in The Province of Madras Vs. The Firm of Kanigolla Sivalakshminarayana and Another, has not been agreed to by the

Bench. I am inclined to hold the view that if the petitioners had succeeded in proving that they were not dealers but were only commission agents,

then certainly the tax was not legitimately leviable against them and the claim of the assessing authorities would not be tenable. But, unfortunately

for the petitioners in this case, they have not succeeded in proving that they were commission agents and not dealers. To prove that they were

connmsaion agents they would have had to satisfy many requirements that are prescribed in Section 8. I do not find anywhere in the judgments or

in the evidence that has been read out to me that the petitioners come within the scope of Section 8, General Sales-tax Act, nobwitbstandicg the

fact that they did not obtain licence from the Government for the purpose of earrj ing on the agency business. If at least theie was evidence to the

effect that they were acting as commission agents for a fixed remuneration and were at least maintaining accounts of the transactions, then certainly

there would have been some material for the Courts below to go upon and decide that the petitioners were not really dealers but were merely

commission agents. In the absence of any such evidence, I do not think that there is any case made out against the judgments of the Courts below.

I therefore bold that what the Courts below have decided is correct and there are no merits in these petitions. The petitions are then fore

dismissed.