2003 (11) TMI 50 - HC - Income Tax

Collection of sales tax from the hire purchasers - Whether the Tribunal was in law justified in holding that the accretion in the contingency account No. II could not be brought to tax as trading receipt? - Amounts collected by the assessee from the hire purchasers as sales tax were not really sales tax at all because the sale at that time had not taken place. The sales tax is payable when the sale takes place - In the case of hire purchase the sale takes place only at the time mentioned in the hire purchase agreement, or at he option of the hirer - Hence, there is no sales tax liability on the assessee at all when he collected the amounts from the hire purchaser. Hence, the amounts in contingency account No. II have to be reated as income of the assessee in the assessment year in which it made the collection

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether there was material justifying the Tribunal's finding on the liability in respect of accretion in the contingency account No. II?
2. Whether the accretion in the contingency account No. II could be brought to tax as trading receipt despite the provision for sales tax liability?

Analysis:
The case involved a company engaged in hire-purchase of motor vehicles, maintaining accounts on a mercantile basis. The company collected entire sales tax upfront from customers and credited it to a contingency account No. II. The dispute arose regarding the taxability of the amount credited in this account. The Income-tax Officer held it taxable, but the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal ruled in favor of the company.

The High Court analyzed the nature of sales tax receipts based on previous Supreme Court judgments. It was established that sales tax realized by a trader constitutes trading or business receipts. The Court emphasized that the sales tax liability arises when a sale occurs. The Court referred to various hire-purchase agreement scenarios recognized by the Supreme Court, highlighting the distinction between agreements where the hirer has an option to buy and those where purchase is obligatory.

The Court discussed the definition of "income" under the Income-tax Act, which includes various receipts or gains, even notional income. It cited Supreme Court decisions emphasizing the wide scope of the term "income" and its inclusive definition. The Court also referred to previous judgments regarding excess amounts realized and retained by an assessee, emphasizing that such amounts are taxable as income.

Regarding the specific case, the Court disagreed with the Tribunal's view that the credits in contingency account No. II did not represent trading receipts. The Court clarified that the amounts collected as sales tax were not actually sales tax since the sale had not taken place at that time. It emphasized that the liability to pay sales tax arises when the sale occurs, as established in previous Supreme Court rulings.

The Court highlighted that each assessment year is a distinct period and assessed separately. Therefore, the collection of sales tax in a particular year cannot be associated with the accrual or payment of sales tax in a future year. The Court concluded that the amounts in contingency account No. II should be treated as income of the assessee in the year of collection, as there was no sales tax liability at that time.

In conclusion, the High Court ruled in favor of the Department, holding that the amounts credited in the contingency account No. II should be considered as income of the assessee in the assessment year of collection, based on the legal principles discussed and the specific circumstances of the case.