9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1977 (8) TMI 151 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax
Issues:
Challenge to sales tax orders regarding inclusion of forwarding charges in sale price. Analysis: The petitioner, dealing in industrial gas, challenged the sales tax orders including forwarding charges in the sale price for the year 1970-71. The petitioner had appeal and revision remedies but chose revision before the Divisional Deputy Commissioner, who upheld the assessing authority's order. The petitioner contended that forwarding charges should not be part of the sale price as per the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958. The definition of "sale price" under section 2(o) of the Act was crucial in determining whether forwarding charges were part of the sale price. The petitioner argued that since forwarding charges were separately shown in bills, they should not be considered part of the sale price. However, no evidence was presented regarding the terms of sale to consumers by the dealer. Referring to Dyer Meakin Breweries Ltd. v. State of Kerala, the court highlighted that charges incurred before the sale to make goods available to customers may be part of the sale price. The assessing authority found forwarding charges to be part of the sale price based on the bill evidence presented. The Divisional Deputy Commissioner also observed the lack of evidence proving that forwarding charges were not part of the sale price. Citing Commissioner of Sales tax, Madhya Pradesh v. Anwarkhan Mahboob Co., the court emphasized that the actual contract terms between parties determine whether additional charges are part of the sale price. The court noted that the petitioner failed to prove the terms of the contract with consumers, leading to the conclusion that forwarding charges constituted part of the sale price. Considering Supreme Court authorities and the petitioner's arguments, the court found no support for the petitioner's contention. The court also addressed the limited scope of the petition under article 226 of the Constitution, stating relief could only be granted in case of apparent legal or jurisdictional errors in the orders, which were not found in this case. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition, directing the petitioner to bear costs and refunding the security amount after deducting costs.
|
