JUDGMENT
L. Palamalai, Administrative Member
1. This tax revision case is against the orders of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Chennai, in T.A. No. 390 of 1993 dated January 25, 1994. In this case the assessee sold scraps on behalf of the departments of Central Government as agent. The assessee was assessed to tax as well as additional sales tax. The dispute before the Appellate Tribunal was the levy of 2 per cent additional sales tax on a turnover of Rs. 47,79,316. The Appellate Tribunal confirmed the liability of the assessee in respect of additional sales tax.
2. Mr. P.V. Sudhakar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the assessee acted as agent for selling the scrap of Central Government departments and the transactions are reflected in the accounts of the Central Government departments. The assessee received only a meagre commission for the services. Therefore, fastening liability for additional sales tax in respect of the transactions for Central Government departments is not in order. In this connection he relied on the decision of the Karnataka High Court reported in [1981] 47 STC 121 in the case of Guduthur Bheemappa v. Commercial Tax Officer, I Circle, Bellary. He further argued that only the Government Departments, if liable have to pay the additional sales tax and therefore the levy is not to be at the hands of the assessee.
3. Mr. R. Mahadevan, the learned Government Advocate, supported the order of the Appellate Tribunal which upheld the liability to tax in respect of the assessee.
4. We have considered the contentions carefully and perused the records. According to Section 2(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act, 1970 the liability to pay additional sales tax is on a dealer including the principal selling or buying goods, through agents whose taxable turnover for a year exceeded Rs. 10 lakhs at the relevant period of 1989-90. Apparently, the assessee as agent of the Central Government departments is the dealer who is liable to pay not only tax but also additional sales tax. In the decision reported in Guduthur Bheemappa v. Commercial Tax Officer [1981] 47 STC 121 (Kar) the total turnover of the principals and that of the agent was below the taxable limit of Rs. 10 lakhs and on that account it was held that there was no liability to levy additional sales tax. However, in the case of India Beedi Leaves v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in [1984] 57 STC 190, the Madras High Court has categorically held that the levy of additional sales tax was consequential on the original assessment of sales tax and if the turnover of the assessment year exceeded the statutory turnover amount, the additional sales tax was leviable and that it is not possible to dissect the turnover of the assessee and to find out his turnover and the turnover of the principal. Similarly, the Supreme Court of India in Cardamom Planters’ Association v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam reported in [1989] 75 STC 118 considered whether it is possible to dissect the turnover of the various principals for the payment of sales tax or surcharge in the context of tax levied on the commission agent. In this connection the Supreme Court observed as follows :
“As already pointed out, these provisions clearly treat a commission agent as a dealer and make him liable to sales tax as well as surcharge in respect of his entire turnover. The Act does not contemplate any dissection of this turnover into transactions on behalf of various principals by reference to their individual liability to pay either sales tax or surcharge.”
5. Following the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court cited above, we have no hesitation in holding that the agent is liable for additional sales tax also irrespective of the turnover of the principals, namely, the various Central Government departments and the liability of such turnover for additional sales tax. Thus, we find that the conclusion reached by the Appellate Tribunal is in order. There is no case to interfere. Accordingly, the tax revision case is dismissed.
And this Tribunal doth further order that this order on being produced be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned.
Issued under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on the 18th day of July, 2000.