Venkataramiah, J.
1. The assessee is a company in these two cases, but the assessment years are different. The assessee had purchased certain taxable goods through its commission agents. The assessing authority under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act assessed the turnover in question in each of these years to tax. In the appeals filed by the assessee, the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes being of the view that in cases of this nature, only the commission agents should be assessed and not the principals, set aside the order of assessment and directed the assessing authority to make orders of assessment against the commission agents. Being of the view that the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes were erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, the Commissioner of the Commercial Taxes took action against the assessee under Section 22A of the Act. After hearing the assessee, he reversed the orders of the Deputy Commissioner and restored the orders of the assessing authority. These two appeals are presents under section 24 of the Act.
2. There is no substance in these two appeals. Merely because there is a provision in section 11 of the act enabling the authorities under the Act to pass orders of assessment against commission agents acting on behalf of known principals, it cannot be said that the principals cannot be proceeded against. They are dealers within the meaning of that expression found in the Act and an assessment order passed against them would not be illegal. There is no bar in law for making an order of assessment against the principals, in such a case, unless there is already an order of assessment against the commission agents in respect of the same turnover. This view is in conformity with the view of the Division Bench of this Court in State of Mysore v. F.D. Malladad & Bros. [1969] 23 STC 230.
3. Sri B. V. Katageri, learned counsel for the appellant, however, argued that another Division Bench of this Court had taken a contrary view in Kabaddar, Hubli v. State of Karnataka (S.T.R.P. No. 92 of 1973 decided on 2nd January, 1974). We have gone through that order. In that order there was no order of assessment passed against a principal which had bee set aside by an authority under the Act, either in appeals or in revision. Hence, no assistance can be derived by the assessee from the aforesaid decision. These two appeals fail and they are dismissed with costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 100 one set.