9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1996 (3) TMI 499 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax
Issues:
1. Whether inspection charges are part of the sale price. 2. Whether goods destroyed in the flood are considered as sold. Analysis: Issue 1: Inspection charges as part of the sale price The revision petition challenged the order of the Tax Board confirming that inspection charges were not part of the sale price. The petitioner argued that since the purchaser paid the inspection charges to the seller, they should be considered part of the sale price. However, the respondent contended that as per the contract, the inspection charges were to be paid by the purchaser after being initially deposited by the seller. The court examined the contract terms and noted that the inspection charges were ultimately paid by the purchaser, not the seller. The court held that the inspection charges did not form part of the sale price, as the sale price remained the same before and after inspection. Citing relevant case laws, the court upheld the Tax Board's decision, concluding that the inspection charges were rightly excluded from the taxable turnover. Issue 2: Goods destroyed in the flood The petitioner also contested the finding that solvent cement and P.V.C. worth Rs. 65,975, destroyed in the flood, were not sold. The respondent argued that both lower authorities had concurred that the goods were destroyed and not sold, making it a factual finding with no legal question involved. The court agreed with the concurrent findings, stating that no question of law arose regarding the destruction of the goods in the flood. Consequently, the court dismissed the revision petition, emphasizing that there was no basis for interference in the decision regarding the goods destroyed in the flood. In conclusion, the High Court of Rajasthan upheld the decision of the Tax Board, ruling that inspection charges were not part of the sale price and that goods destroyed in the flood were not considered sold. The court dismissed the revision petition, stating that no legal issues warranted intervention, and no costs were awarded.
|
