ORDER H. S. KAMATH, PRESIDENT. - The appellant asked for exemption from taxation on the ground that he dealt exclusively in handloom cloth. Enquiry showed that on one occasion (during the period 1st June, 1947, to 10th April, 1949) he had dealt in mill-made cloth and the exemption asked for was, therefore, refused. It has been argued on his behalf that as he held no licence for selling mill-cloth, he could not be considered as having dealt in such cloth. The record does not throw much light on the point raised, except for some statements contained in a letter which the appellant wrote to the Sales Tax Commissioner on 15th June, 1950. From this it would appear that on an order received from a vyapari (trader or businessman), the appellant bought for him some mill-cloth, spending his own money, which of course he later recovered from him, together with adat at one-half per cent (0-8-0 per hundred rupees). Mention may also be made of a report submitted to the Commissioner on the 29th April, 1950, by the Sales Tax Officer in which the following occurs :- "The perusal of khatabahi clearly shows that the applicant was a Pucca Adatiya for handloom as well as mill-made cloth during the year ending Diwali, 1948." To say the least, it seems doubtful whether the Sales Tax Officer, in reporting as above, realised fully the technical implications of pakki adat. But, in any case, this report, taken together with the appellant's letter referred to earlier, will perhaps give some idea of the business in which the appellant is engaged. His learned counsel has urged that he is hardly more than a broker or commission agent, who brings about transactions between the seller and the buyer and who simultaneously recovers his brokerage or commission on the spot. The learned counsel for the State agrees that if the appellant is a commission agent in the sense suggested, he cannot be considered a dealer, in which case he further urges that no question of exemption arises. 2. In referring to transactions of the nature described in the preceding paragraph, it seems advisable to avoid the use of the expression "commission agent"; because under Section 2(c) of the Act, a "person who.........as..........agent, carries on............the business of selling or supplying goods.............for commission....." comes under the definition of "dealer". 2. In referring to transactions of the nature described in the preceding paragraph, it seems advisable to avoid the use of the expression "commission agent"; because under Section 2(c) of the Act, a "person who.........as..........agent, carries on............the business of selling or supplying goods.............for commission....." comes under the definition of "dealer". If the expression "commission agent" is to be confined to a person just described, it should be clear that it cannot apply to a person like the appellant, if we are to go by such facts about him as can be elicited from the record. For, he does not carry on any business of selling or supplying goods; he is hardly more than an intermediary between the seller or supplier on the one hand and the buyer on the other. For the services he renders as such intermediary, be recovers his remuneration either from one or both of parties. To distinguish him from the "commission agent" included in the definition in Section 2(c), he could perhaps be simply called as a broker and his remuneration as brokerage. At any rate, the view urged by counsel on both sides that a person, acting as a broker and recovering only his brokerage, is not a dealer is correct. 3. The appellant, not being a dealer, according to his own statements and pleadings, was not competent to make an application under Rule 25. The dismissal of an application so made is, therefore, in order. I would note, however, that the appellant is not without a remedy, if the facts stated by him and on his behalf are correct. He could ask for cancellation of his registration certificate and upon cancellation he should get the relief he has desired. If, however, the facts stated by him and the pleadings made on his behalf are not correct, we revert to the position as determined by the Sales Tax Commissioner. In either case, there is no reason for interference in appeal with the order of the learned Commissioner dismissing the application made under Rule 25. Ordered accordingly.