Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

In Re: K.T. Cherian

Disposition Revision allowed Court Chennai Decided Mar 12, 1954
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/811610

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Criminal Revn. Case No. 334 of 1953 and Criminal Revn. Petn. No. 307 of 1953
Subject
Sales Tax
Disposition
Revision allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

-

Key legal issue
Sales Tax
Outcome / disposition
Revision allowed
Acts & sections
Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 - Sections 2

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: K.T. Cherian

Advocate R. Narasimhachari and ;S. Venkatachalam, Advs.

Respondent

Advocate Asst. Public Prosecutor

Legal References

Acts
Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 - Sections 2
Cases Referred
Radhakrishna Rao v. Province Of Madras
Reported In
AIR1954Mad959; (1954)IIMLJ228

Excerpt

- ordersomasundaram, j.1. the only point in this case is whether the petitioner was only a broker in the tea transactions in respect of which he received certain commission. the petitioner is the proprietor of the malabar trading corporation, calicut. this corporation was acting as selling agents in respect of rubber, tea and cashewnuts on behalf of coffee plantations ltd., tamaranneri rubber co., ltd., milambur and amalgamated malabar estates, tamaranneri. in the invoices made out for tea, the corporation was charging 2 1/2 per cent. commission from the estates for whom they sold tea. the petitioner was not keeping an account of the orders booked but kept only an account of the commission received.the case of the prosecution is that he was not merely a broker but was really a dealer within the definition of that term in the madras sales-tax act. the commercial tax officer, in his order on the appeal petition dated 2-3-1945 which is, ex. d. 1, in the case, finds that the firm has absolutely no interest in the tea sales as such as they are effected directly by the estate to messrs. p. l. and co. it is clear that what happened was that the petitioner was only bringing the purchaser and the seller together and the goods never passed into his possession. in such cases, as pointed out by the pull bench in -- 'radhakrishna rao v. province of madras', : air1952 mad718 (a), merchants do not fall within the definition of 'dealer' as they themselves neither sell nor buy the goods and simply bring the seller and the buyer together and receive a brokerage or commission, by way of remuneration for the trouble. in such cases, the merchants are not liable to pay sales-tax on the commission that is received.this revision petition is not opposed by the government. i therefore set aside the conviction and sentence and acquit the accused. the fine and the tax amount, if paid, will be refunded to him.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Somasundaram, J.

1. The only point In this case is whether the petitioner was only a broker in the tea transactions in respect of which he received certain commission. The petitioner Is the proprietor of the Malabar Trading Corporation, Calicut. This corporation was acting as selling agents in respect of rubber, tea and cashewnuts on behalf of Coffee Plantations Ltd., Tamaranneri Rubber Co., Ltd., Milambur and Amalgamated Malabar Estates, Tamaranneri. In the invoices made out for tea, the corporation was charging 2 1/2 per cent. commission from the estates for whom they sold tea. The petitioner was not keeping an account of the orders booked but kept only an account of the commission received.

The case of the prosecution is that he was not merely a broker but was really a dealer within the definition of that term in the Madras Sales-tax Act. The Commercial Tax Officer, in his order on the appeal petition dated 2-3-1945 which is, Ex. D. 1, in the case, finds that the firm has absolutely no interest in the tea sales as such as they are effected directly by the estate to Messrs. P. L. and Co. It is clear that what happened was that the petitioner was only bringing the purchaser and the seller together and the goods never passed into his possession. In such cases, as pointed out by the Pull Bench in -- 'Radhakrishna Rao v. Province Of Madras', : AIR1952 Mad718 (A), merchants do not fall within the definition of 'dealer' as they themselves neither sell nor buy the goods and simply bring the seller and the buyer together and receive a brokerage or commission, by way of remuneration for the trouble. In such cases, the merchants are not liable to pay sales-tax on the commission that is received.

This revision petition is not opposed by the Government. I therefore set aside the conviction and sentence and acquit the accused. The fine and the tax amount, if paid, will be refunded to him.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial