1957 (1) TMI 33 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether sales tax realized from the purchaser under rule 51 can be included in the taxable turnover?
2. Whether privileges enjoyed by a dealer collecting sales tax separately differ from those including it in the sale price?
3. Whether battery cells can be considered as electrical goods under the Sales Tax Act?

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The first two questions raised in the reference are addressed based on a previous case, Dhannalal v. Commissioner of Sales Tax. The court held that a dealer cannot deduct sales tax from the sale price unless collected separately as per rule 51. The taxable turnover includes sales tax if collected by including it in the sale price. The court referred to the case's conclusions to resolve the current questions effectively.

Issue 2:
Regarding the distinction between dealers collecting sales tax separately and those including it in the sale price, the court reiterated the principles established in Dhannalal's case. The judgment emphasized that sales tax collected by including it in the sale price is liable to be taxed again, emphasizing the importance of adherence to the rules governing sales tax collection.

Issue 3:
The argument focused on whether battery cells qualify as electrical goods under the Sales Tax Act. The court analyzed the definition of "electrical goods of every description" and concluded that torch battery cells fall within this category. The judgment clarified that the specific mention of torch cells in a later schedule does not exclude them from being considered electrical goods. The court rejected the argument that only articles using electric energy exclusively qualify as electrical goods, emphasizing that batteries, which store electric energy, also fall under this category. The court's decision affirmed that torch battery cells are indeed electrical goods for taxation purposes.

In conclusion, the court answered all three questions raised in the reference, providing detailed explanations and legal reasoning for each issue. The judges, Dixit and Samvatsar, concurred on the decision, and the reference was resolved accordingly without costs.