1995 (9) TMI 339 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Implied sale of packing material along with fertilizers.
2. Classification of sales of coal tar to Shalimar Tar Products as intra-State or inter-State sales.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a reference under section 44(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, regarding the implied sale of packing material along with fertilizers. The assessee, a manufacturer of steel products and fertilizers, was assessed for treating certain sales of steel products as inter-State sales and including the price of polythene bags in the taxable turnover. The authorities contended that since the fertilizers were packed, the polythene bags were also sold along with the fertilizers. However, the court noted that there was no legal requirement for a specific type of container for fertilizers and the price of the container was insignificant compared to the price of the fertilizers. The court referred to Supreme Court decisions to highlight the different contingencies of sale transactions involving products and containers. Ultimately, the court held that there was no implied sale of packing material, and no sales tax could be charged on the price of the packing material.

2. The second issue pertained to the classification of sales of coal tar to Shalimar Tar Products as either intra-State or inter-State sales. The Tribunal determined these sales to be inter-State, a decision challenged by the assessee. However, the court found the Tribunal's decision consistent with the precedent set in Oil India Ltd. v. Superintendent of Taxes. Therefore, the court upheld the classification of the sales of coal tar as inter-State sales, ruling in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee.

In conclusion, the court answered the first question regarding the implied sale of packing material in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue. The second question concerning the classification of sales of coal tar to Shalimar Tar Products as inter-State sales was answered in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee. The court directed the transmission of the order to the Board of Revenue, thereby settling the reference accordingly.