1978 (8) TMI 214 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of the expression "collected as such" in section 7 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959 for determining taxable turnover.

Analysis:
The case involved a question referred by the Commercial Taxes Tribunal regarding the admissibility of a deduction claimed by a dealer towards sales tax realized from customers but not separately shown in sale memos. The dealer claimed a deduction of Rs. 1,32,710 based on the argument that sales tax was collected along with sale prices, even though not separately shown in the memos. The assessing officer initially rejected the claim, but the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes accepted it upon reviewing sale memos and ledger accounts. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes then challenged this decision in revision before the Tribunal, arguing that the deduction was impermissible as the sales tax amount was not explicitly shown in the sale bills. The Tribunal, despite acknowledging the persuasive arguments made by the dealer, held that for a deduction to be allowed, the sales tax amount must be shown separately in the sale memos, as per the provisions of section 7(1)(b) and 7(2)(a)(ii) of the Act.

The High Court analyzed the meaning of the expression "collected as such" in section 7 of the Act to determine the taxable turnover of a dealer. It deliberated on whether the sales tax amount must be explicitly shown separately in sale memos or if its identity could be ascertained from other evidence. Referring to previous judgments, the Court emphasized that evidence indicating the collection of sales tax separately from the sale value of goods is crucial for claiming a deduction under section 7(1)(b) and 7(2)(a)(ii) of the Act. The Court highlighted that if acceptable evidence exists, apart from sale memos, to demonstrate the collection of sales tax, the deduction claim must be allowed.

In this case, the Deputy Commissioner had accepted the evidence presented by the dealer, indicating that sales tax was collected as such, even though not explicitly shown in sale memos. The Tribunal, while finding the dealer's arguments persuasive, erroneously reversed the decision without adequately considering the accepted evidence. The High Court concluded that since the facts presented to the Tribunal were not found to be incorrect or unreliable, the Tribunal was unjustified in disallowing the deduction claimed by the dealer. Therefore, the Court answered the question in the negative, stating that the dealer was entitled to costs. Both judges concurred on the decision to answer the reference negatively, upholding the dealer's claim for deduction of sales tax realized from customers.