2008 (8) TMI 869 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal was legally justified to quash the tax imposed on the sale of ₹ 6,58,316 without recording no reason for the same? Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal was legally justified to exempt the amount of freight and handling charges? Held that - Coming to the facts of the case, the authorities below have excluded ₹ 68,69,873 from the sale price which were charged towards the freight and handling charges separately. However, it was found that, as a matter of fact, in the bills the dealer-opposite party has charged much more amount than the amount spent by it towards the freight and handling charges. This excess amount was considered by the assessing officer as the charges made by the dealer-opposite party under the other heads and shall form part of the sale price. Without setting aside the finding recorded by the two authorities below to it, the Tribunal assumed that the said amount of ₹ 6,58,316 was towards the labour charges/insurance. The order of the Tribunal is far from satisfactory as it does not contain any reason as to whether the freight charged by the dealer-opposite party amounting to ₹ 6,58,316 was charged towards the labour charges/insurance charges. Revision allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of section 2(h) of the Central Sales Tax Act regarding the inclusion of excess charges in the sale price.

Analysis:
The case involves a registered limited company engaged in manufacturing and selling calcium carbonate, which admitted a tax liability of Rs. 19,10,445.62 under the Central Sales Tax Act for the assessment year 1993-94. The assessing authority discovered that the company had charged excess amounts for freight and handling, resulting in a total collection of Rs. 75,28,189 from customers. The excess amount of Rs. 6,58,316 was considered part of the sale price and taxed accordingly. The first appellate authority upheld this decision, but the Tribunal in Second Appeal No. 94 of 1999 for the same assessment year set it aside.

The main questions raised in the memo of revision were whether the Tribunal was justified in quashing the tax imposed on the excess sale amount and exempting the freight and handling charges. The Department argued that as per section 2(h) of the Act, the excess amount should be included in the sale price, while the dealer-opposite party contended that since the amount was separately charged in the bill, it should not be considered part of the sale price.

The interpretation of section 2(h) of the Central Sales Tax Act was crucial in this case. The Supreme Court's decision in Hindustan Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan clarified that the sale price includes any sum charged for services related to the goods, except for the cost of freight or delivery if separately charged. The exclusion clause in the definition of sale price applies only when the cost of freight is not part of the price and is separately charged. The Court emphasized that if the cost of freight is part of the price, it falls within the first part of the definition, rendering the exclusion clause irrelevant.

In this context, the Tribunal's decision to exclude the excess amount from the sale price without proper reasoning was deemed incorrect. The Tribunal's assumption that the amount was for labor or insurance charges was found unsatisfactory. The judgment of the apex court in Hindustan Sugar Mills has been consistently followed in subsequent cases, reinforcing the inclusion of excess charges in the sale price.

The dealer-opposite party cited several decisions regarding the exclusion of freight and insurance charges from the sale price if separately charged, but these were deemed inapplicable to the present case. Ultimately, the Court held that the excess amount of Rs. 6,58,316 should be included in the sale price for Central sales tax purposes, overturning the Tribunal's decision.

Therefore, the Tribunal's order was found indefensible, and the revision was allowed with costs.