Correct the sentence
"Raju entered into the principal's chambers without permission"
Answers
Explanation:
Sri Konathala Venkata Ramana And ... vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Anr. on 24 October, 1968
Equivalent citations: 1969 24 STC 367 AP
Author: J Reddy
Bench: J Reddy, Parthasarathi
JUDGMENT Jaganmohan Reddy, C.J.
1. This batch of writ petitions challenges the constitutional validity and vires of Section 11 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, as amended by Act 5 of 1968 (hereinafter called "the Act").
2. Taking the facts in W.P. 2842 of 1967 as typical of the batch of writ petitions, it appears that the petitioner, who is a registered dealer under the Act, is a firm carrying on the business of commission agents in jaggery at Anakapalle in Visakhapatnam district. Numerous small agriculturists in the villages near about Anakapalle grow sugar-cane on small extents of land. This sugar-cane is converted into jaggery and brought to the shop of the petitioner for sale on commission. The petitioner, it is stated, arranges for the sale of the jaggery in the presence of the agriculturists or their representatives, by auction in the market place and passes on the sale price to the agriculturist-principals after appropriating the agent's commission. It is averred that none of the agriculturist-principals have a turnover exceeding Rs. 10,000 and consequently, under the sales tax law, the agent would not be liable in respect of the transactions entered into on behalf of such principals. Apart from the question as to whether the petitioners would be liable under Section 5-A of the Act for additional sales tax on a turnover exceeding Rs. 3 lakhs, which question is concluded by a judgment of this court in W.P. Nos. 748 of 1967 and batch decided on 26th September, 1968 Since reported as Addepalli Surya Ramachandra Rao & Co. v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. [1969] 24 S.T.C. 133, it is contended that a Bench of this Court, consisting of one of us (the Chief Justice) and Krishna Rao, J., had held in Irri Veera Raju v. Commercial Tax Officer [1967] 20 S.T.C. 501, 509 that the reason why an agent is being assessed is that he is only a convenient representative for assessment, levy and collection of the tax whether he is the agent of a resident or a non-resident principal. That is, the agent's liability is a vicarious liability on behalf of the seller or purchaser as the case may be, because it is convenient to effect collections from him. On this hypothesis, it was held by Ramachandra Iyer, J., delivering the judgment of a Bench of that Court in T.R.C. Nos. 38 to 40 of 1955, that an agent "is deemed to be as many dealers" as there are "non-resident principals" for whom he is dealing. Therefore, when there is an exemption attaching to the sale or sales of goods made on behalf of the principals which is included in the turnover, it stands to reason that the exemption would be attracted to the sale of such goods by the agent, for really, it is in respect of the principal's goods that he passes title and it is the sale of these goods that occasions the tax liability. This was the basis of the decision of the Bench of this Court in Irri Veera Raju's case [1967] 20 S.T.C. 501, 509 referred to above.
3. As a result of the decision of the Bench in Irri Veera Raju's case [1967] 20 S.T.C. 501, 509 the assessments which were being made on the agents on the aggregate of the turnover of the several principals which exceed Rs. 10,000 notwithstanding the fact that the turnover of each of the principals did not exceed Rs. 10,000 were struck down. In order to get over the effect of this decision and to safeguard against any possible evasion by agent-dealers who purport to act on behalf of fictitious principals, Section 11 of the Act was amended so as to make the agent liable in respect of the transactions of several principals whose aggregate turnover exceeded Rs. 10,000 irrespective of the fact that the turnover in respect of each of the principals was less than Rs. 10,000. It is the effect and validity of this section that are now challenged before us.
Answer:
7f6d588x58x5844 by xtizurztizt8x84s48zrixgoxhgiviv and Nicobar 3 by yd