9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1990 (2) TMI 275 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax
Issues:
Interpretation of taxable turnover for a dealer selling application forms for scooters. Analysis: The case involved a dispute regarding the treatment of the entire amount received by a dealer from the sale of application forms for booking scooters as taxable turnover. The Tribunal had reduced the taxable turnover by the amount remitted to the principal-manufacturer, considering only the amount retained by the dealer as part of the turnover. The main question was whether the entire amount received should be included in the turnover or only the amount retained by the dealer. The facts of the case revealed that the dealer, M/s. M.P. Auto House, sold application forms for scooters, with a portion of the amount received being remitted to the principal-manufacturer, M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd. The Tribunal found that only the amount retained by the dealer should be considered as business income or incidental to the business, not the entire amount received. The Tribunal's decision was based on the contractual obligation to remit a portion of the amount to the principal-manufacturer. The Court analyzed the arguments presented by the Revenue's counsel, who contended that even the amount remitted to the principal-manufacturer should be included in the taxable turnover. However, the Court disagreed with this argument, emphasizing that only the amount retained by the dealer could be considered as part of the turnover. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the amount remitted to the principal-manufacturer should not be treated as taxable turnover for the dealer. In conclusion, the Court ruled in favor of the dealer, holding that only the amount retained by the dealer from the sale of application forms should be treated as business income or incidental to the business. The Court rejected the Revenue's argument to include the amount remitted to the principal-manufacturer in the taxable turnover. The judgment was in favor of the non-applicant dealer, and the Revenue was directed to bear the costs.
|
