ORDER R. JAYASIMHA BABU, J. - The petitioner is a co-operative society, which is engaged in marketing of agricultural produce of its members. For the assessment years 1992-93, 1994-95 and 1995-96, the assessing officer levied purchase tax on the society, on the groundnut grown by its members and sold at the auctions held by the assessee, even after describing the position of the society as "agent on behalf of the agriculturist principals for commission". The assessing authority appears to have entertained the view that after the amendment to the definitions of "dealer", "sale", and "turnover" by the amending Act No. 31 of 1992, which included the "person through whom the goods are bought, sold, supplied or distributed", in the definition of "dealer" and such transaction of sale as forming the turnover of such agent, the petitioner-society, which acts as the agent of the agriculturist principals is liable to be taxed on all sales or purchases effected by it as the agent of that member. In doing so, the authority has lost sight of the fact that under entry 6 of the Second Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, the point of levy of tax on groundnut is the point of first purchase in the State and not the point of sale. That entry reads thus : "Oil-seeds, that is to say, - (i) groundnut or peanut (a) At the point of first sale in the (Arachis hypogaea) State in respect of goods purchased from outside the State. (b) At the point of first purchase in the State in respect of goods not falling under item (a) above." The very fact that the society is the agent of its members, who are agriculturists and who entrust their produce to the society to market the same would show that the assessee does not itself purchase the produce from the members. All that it does is to effect sales on their behalf and pass goods title to the buyer on such sales. The first purchaser of the goods so sold would be the buyer at the auction held by the society. All that it does is to effect sales on their behalf and pass goods title to the buyer on such sales. The first purchaser of the goods so sold would be the buyer at the auction held by the society. The point of levy of tax on groundnut being at the point of first purchase it would become the liability of such a buyer to pay the tax and that liability cannot be fastened on the society merely because it is the agent of the member whose goods are being sold. The authority given by the agriculturist members to the society to effect sale of their goods may result in the society being treated as "dealer" as it is in a position to pass on goods title to the buyer on behalf of the members. That position however does not translate into one of sale by principal to its agent. Agency implies the existence of a relationship between a principal and a person who is authorised to act on behalf of such principal, being called as the agent. The title passed on to the buyer is the title that vests in the principal which the agent is authorised to transfer by reason of the entrustment to the agent by the principal for effecting the sale. We are a little surprised that the Special Taxation Tribunal should have observed that the assessing officer had regarded this transaction as one of sale by the agriculturist principal to the society. That is not the view of the assessing officer who has categorically held that the petitioner/dealer is the agent of the agriculturist principal. It is not the finding of the assessing authority that the assessee is the purchaser from the agriculturist principal. The impugned order of the Tribunal, as also that of the assessing officer cannot be upheld. The same are, therefore, set aside in so far as the levy of purchase tax on the sale of groundnuts, effected by the assessee/dealer as agent of the agriculturist principals who are its members. The petitioner has also challenged the validity of Act No. 31 of 1992. That question does not require our consideration in this proceeding. The same are, therefore, set aside in so far as the levy of purchase tax on the sale of groundnuts, effected by the assessee/dealer as agent of the agriculturist principals who are its members. The petitioner has also challenged the validity of Act No. 31 of 1992. That question does not require our consideration in this proceeding. It is not necessary for us to go into the validity of the Act as, even if we assume that the Act is valid, the assessee cannot be taxed, as the assessee is not the purchaser and the point of levy of tax is the first purchase. Petitions allowed.