1997 (3) TMI 484 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether the deposits were liable to be treated as part of the assessee s sales turnover for the purpose of levy of sales tax? Held that - Appeal dismissed. The consumers will be liable to pay sales tax when they return the bottles by taking back the deposits. This proposition was countered by arguing that there was a single point tax on sale of bottles. If that be so, then the charge of tax, if any, would fall on the first sale by the principal, i.e., United Brewery Company Limited. The assessee was a middle-man and could not be made liable to pay sales tax on account of sale of the bottles to the retailers or the consumers in any event.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of sales tax liability on deposits for bottles in liquor sales.

Detailed Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the treatment of deposits for bottles in liquor sales for the purpose of sales tax levy. The appellant, a distributor of liquor, received bills from the principal showing prices, taxes, and bottle deposits separately. The appellant, in turn, charged its customers similarly. The assessing authority contended that the deposit amount should be included in the turnover for sales tax, considering it as part of the sale of bottles. However, the Tribunal viewed the receipts as deposits, not sale proceeds. The High Court analyzed the situation where the bottles were handed over subject to return, and deposits were collected as safeguards against damage or non-return, concluding that the deposits retained their character and were not sale prices.

The State argued that the transactions should be treated as sales, emphasizing that the amounts received were essentially sale proceeds for the bottles. Additionally, it pointed out that the appellant debited the amounts paid for bottles in its purchase account, indicating an acknowledgment of purchasing the bottles. However, the High Court disagreed, maintaining that the deposits were refundable and did not transform into sale prices. It drew parallels with the practice in soft drink sales, where small amounts were collected against bottle returns, indicating a deposit-like nature.

The Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the distributor received bottles from the principal with a clear understanding that deposits would be refunded upon return. The distributor, in turn, collected deposits from customers at the same rate. The Court clarified that the distributor acted as a middle-man, merely facilitating the process without engaging in the sale of bottles. It highlighted the refund process between the distributor, customers, and principal, reaffirming the absence of any sale of bottles in the transactions.

Regarding the State's contention that sales tax should apply when consumers return bottles and retrieve deposits, the Court rejected the argument. It reasoned that if a tax were applicable, it would fall on the first sale by the principal, not on subsequent transactions involving the distributor or consumers. The Court concluded that the distributor could not be held liable for sales tax on the supposed sale of bottles to retailers or consumers. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's decision on the treatment of bottle deposits in liquor sales for sales tax purposes.

The subsequent appeals related to the same issue were also dismissed in line with the decision in the primary appeal, with no costs imposed on the parties.