9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (7) TMI 902 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxWhether excise duties form part of the sale price? Held that - The order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was well justified and the sale price as agreed between the petitioner and its purchaser, M/s. Oil India Limited, under the purchase order in exclusion of Central excise duty was valid in law and there was no scope for imposing any tax liability based on the Central excise duty incurred by the petitioner. The order of the Tribunal in holding that who pays the excise duty is immaterial and the sale price must include excise duty also without reference to the nature of transaction between the petitioner and its purchaser was not therefore in consonance with the definitions of sale and sale price as defined under section 2(g) and 2(h) of the Act. The impugned order of the Tribunal is therefore set aside and the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner stands confirmed
Issues Involved:
1. Levy of tax under the Central Sales Tax Act. 2. Inclusion of Central excise duty in the sale price. 3. Validity of the Tribunal's decision to restore the assessment order. Detailed Analysis: 1. Levy of Tax under the Central Sales Tax Act: The petitioner, engaged in the manufacture of industrial valves, contested the levy of tax under the Central Sales Tax Act for the assessment year 1990-91. The petitioner argued that the sale price agreed with M/s. Oil India Limited did not include Central excise duty, as per the deemed export benefit scheme provided by the Government of India. The Tribunal's decision to include excise duty in the sale price was challenged. 2. Inclusion of Central Excise Duty in the Sale Price: The petitioner contended that the excise duty was not included in the sale price as per the contract with M/s. Oil India Limited, which was entitled to deemed export benefits. The petitioner raised invoices claiming only the price plus Central sales tax, excluding excise duty. The excise duty paid by the petitioner was reimbursed by the Government of India through cash assistance. The Tribunal, however, held that excise duties formed part of the sale price, irrespective of whether they were passed on to the purchaser. The court found merit in the petitioner's argument, emphasizing that the sale price agreed between the petitioner and M/s. Oil India Limited explicitly excluded Central excise duty. The court noted that the reimbursement of excise duty through cash assistance was an arrangement between the Government of India and the supplier, which did not affect the sale transaction between the petitioner and its buyer. 3. Validity of the Tribunal's Decision to Restore the Assessment Order: The Tribunal had restored the assessing authority's order, which included excise duty in the sale price and imposed tax accordingly. The petitioner argued that the Tribunal's decision was contrary to the definitions of "sale" and "sale price" under sections 2(g) and 2(h) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The court agreed with the petitioner, stating that the sale price, as defined, only included the amount payable to a dealer as consideration for the sale of goods. The agreed price between the petitioner and M/s. Oil India Limited excluded excise duty, and thus, there was no statutory basis to include it in the sale price for tax purposes. The court referenced the Supreme Court decision in Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer and the Madras High Court decision in Indian Potash Limited v. Assistant Commissioner (CT), which supported the petitioner's position that subsidies or cash assistance received from the government did not form part of the sale price. Conclusion: The court concluded that the Tribunal's order was not in consonance with the statutory definitions of "sale" and "sale price" under the Central Sales Tax Act. The order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, which excluded Central excise duty from the sale price, was upheld. The court set aside the Tribunal's order and allowed the writ petition, confirming that the petitioner was not liable to pay tax on the excise duty component.
|
