2019 (6) TMI 1131 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Valuation - inclusion of freight charges borne by the head office of the petitioner at Delhi - gross profit attributed at 15% on freight charges, correct or not - HELD THAT - The brevity is an art of writing judgements and the manner in which the Tribunal has penned its order is in clear violation of the often propounded theory of brevity. All that the tribunal was required to do is to examine the correctness of the decision taken by the First Appellate Authority, while allowing the appeal after verification of documentary evidence produced by the dealer - Unfortunately, the Tribunal did not do so and did not give any specific finding that the documents produced by the assessee did not reflect what was stated by the dealer before the Appellate Authority. In the absence of any such specific finding to discredit the finding of the First Appellate Authority which was rendered after verification of the documents cannot be a reason for allowing the Revenue's appeal. The documents produced by the dealer, verified by the First Appellate Authority shows that the freight was bound by the Head Office at Delhi and shown in the books of account. In fact, the Tribunal does not deny the nature of the transactions and it records that there is no dispute that the goods were brought into the State by the petitioner/dealer from their Head Office at Delhi and utilised in execution of works contract within the state and the goods brought in by the dealer were incorporated into the works contract executed in the State. The substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the petitioner - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Inclusion of freight charges in taxable turnover.
2. Gross profit attribution on freight charges without basis.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the revenue against the order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the assessment year 1999-2000. The substantial questions of law included whether the Tribunal was correct in confirming the inclusion of freight charges borne by the head office in Delhi in the total value of goods executed in the works contract. The Assessing Officer held that the transport charges incurred by the head office in Delhi must be included in the taxable turnover. However, the petitioner argued that the freight charges were borne by the head office and reflected in their accounts for the cost of the branch in Chennai. The First Appellate Authority allowed the appeal based on documentary evidence, but the Tribunal reversed this decision, prompting the High Court to intervene.

2. The High Court criticized the Tribunal for its lengthy order on a minor issue, emphasizing the importance of brevity in judgments. The Tribunal failed to specifically discredit the findings of the First Appellate Authority, which had verified the documents showing that the freight was indeed borne by the head office in Delhi. The Tribunal acknowledged that there was no dispute regarding the nature of the transactions, where goods were brought from Delhi and utilized in works contracts within the state. Consequently, the High Court found that the Tribunal erred in overturning the First Appellate Authority's decision and ruled in favor of the petitioner, restoring the original order.