HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Sinha
CHOWRINGHEE SALES BUREAU LTD. - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
Civil Revn. 110 Of 1956
Decided On : NOVEMBER 16, 1960
AUCTIONEER - SALES TAX - BENGAL FINANCE SALES TAX ACT, 1941 - ACT XLVIII OF 1950 - AMENDMENT - DEFINITION OF DEALER - AUCTIONEER NOT A DEALER - SALE OF GOODS ACT, 1930 - ENTRY 48, LIST II, 7TH SCHEDULE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1935 - TAX ON SALE OF GOODS - SALE OF GOODS - AUCTION SALE - AUCTIONEER NOT A SELLER - NOT LIABLE TO SALES TAX - AMENDMENT INCLUDING AUCTIONEER IN DEFINITION OF DEALER ULTRA VIRES.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an auctioneer, challenged the assessment of sales tax on the ground that it was not liable to sales tax as an auctioneer, as it was not a "dealer" within the meaning of the Bengal Finance Sales Tax Act, 1941 (the "Act"). The Commercial Tax Officer rejected the petitioner's contention and assessed the petitioner to sales tax. The petitioner preferred appeals before the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax, which were dismissed. The petitioner then took out two revisional applications before the Commissioner Presidency Division, which were also dismissed. The petitioner filed a writ petition in the Calcutta High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Calcutta High Court held that the auctioneer was not a "dealer" within the meaning of the Act, and that the amendment to the Act including auctioneers in the definition of "dealer" was ultra vires. The court found that the auctioneer was not the seller of the goods and was not a party to the sale. Therefore, the auctioneer could not be made liable to payment of sales tax.
Issues: 1. Whether an auctioneer is a "dealer" within the meaning of the Bengal Finance Sales Tax Act, 1941? 2. Whether the amendment to the Act including auctioneers in the definition of "dealer" was ultra vires?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. An auctioneer is not a "dealer" within the meaning of the Bengal Finance Sales Tax Act, 1941, because an auctioneer is not the seller of the goods and is not a party to the sale. 2. The amendment to the Act including auctioneers in the definition of "dealer" was ultra vires because it treated an operation as a sale of goods which, according to the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, did not amount to such a sale.
Final Decision: The court made the rule absolute and issued a writ of certiorari quashing the assessment orders, the certificate, and all proceedings had by reason thereof, including the orders of the Certificate Officer, the Additional Collector, and the Commissioner, Presidency Division. The court also issued a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from giving effect to the same. The court made it clear that the order would not prevent the respondents from making a proper assessment of sales tax for the relevant period, should it transpire that any goods sold by auction belonged to the auctioneers themselves.
( 1 ) THE facts in this case are briefly as follows: The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and carries on business as an auctioneer. It is stated in the petition that the business of the petitioner is that of auctioning third party's goods and bringing the seller and buyer together for effecting the sale against a certain rate or percentage of remuneration. The petitioner company is registered as a "dealer" under the provisions of the Bengal Finance Sales Tax Act, 1941 (hereinafter referred to as the "act" ). The petitioner submitted returns for the four quarters ending, last day of March 1950 and for the four quarters ending the last day of March, 1951. It was contended by the petitioner that it was not liable to assessment to sales tax in respect of all its business, as an auctioneer, because as such it was not a "dealer" within the meaning of the said Act. The Commercial Tax Officer by his orders dated 28-10-1954 and 19-11-1954, rejected the contention of the petitioner that it was not liable to sales tax as an auctioneer and assessed the petitioner to sales tax at Rs. 30892/1/- for the four quarters ending March, 1950 and Rs. 7920/11/- for the four quarters ending, last day of, March, 1951. Against the said orders of assessment, the petitioner preferred appeals before the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax,. South Circle, Calcutta, which are still pending. The Commercial Tax Officer, however, without waiting, for the decision of the said appeals, sent a requisition to the certificate officer, Alipore, under Section 5 of the Public Demands Recovery Act, 1930. Certificates were thereupon issued and served on the petitioner. The petitioner preferred objection, contending inter alia that the petitioner was not a "dealer" within the meaning of the said Act, and that the major portion of the assessment related to a period when the Amending Act XLVIII of 1950 had not come into force, which Act had no retrospective operation. On 28-6-1955 the Certificate Officer rejected the contention of the petitioner and relied on a decision of this High Court, of Bose J. , Staynor and Co. v. Commercial Tax Officer, 55 Cal WN 583, in which the learned Judge held that an auctioneer 06 goods is a "dealer" within the meaning of Section 2 (c) (i) of the said Act. Against the said decision, the petitioner preferred two appeals numbered as 93 and 94 of 1955, before the Additional Collector, 24 Parganas. The Additional Collector by his order dated 24-8-1955 rejected the appeals, also relying on the said decision of Bose, J. In the meanwhile, there had been a sales tax reference to the High Court under Section 21 (1) of the said Act, being the Sales Tax Reference Case No. 218 of 1951, Chowringhee Sales Bureau Ltd. v. Member, Board of Revenue, which reference is still pending. It was urged in the appeal that until the reference was heard and decided the matter should be kept pending, but the Additional Collector did not accept this prayer. The appeals were accordingly dismissed. Against the said decision of the Additional Collector, the petitioner took out two revisional applications before the Commissioner Presidency Division. 'on 14-12-1954 the said applications were dismissed. On 10-1-1956 this rule was issued by Bose J. upon the opposite party, to show cause why a writ in the nature of mandamus, should not issue commanding them to rescind, recall and/or forbear from giving effect to the certificates of demands as contained in annexure "a'' to the petition, and/or why a writ in the nature of certiorari should not issue quashing and/or setting aside the proceedings and/or why such further and other orders should not be made as to this Court may seem fit and proper. The learned Judge passed an order for the issue of an interim injunction restraining the opposite parties from realising the demands which were the subject matter of the certificate case mentioned above, until the disposal of the rule. The
State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley and Co. (Madras) Ltd.
Gannon Dunkerley and Co. v. State of Madras
Radhakrishna Rao v. Province of Madras
P.Samba Murthi v. State of Andhra
Mahadayal Premachandra v. Commercial Tax Officer Calcutta
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.