1972 (11) TMI 86

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... amounts falling under the head "charges for packing and delivery", when specified and charged for by the dealer separately without including them in the price of goods sold should be included, (sic) has been negatived. The commodity sold is cement. Exhibit P1, a sample bill states the price for the cement. Packing charges (packing in gunny bags) are stated separately. It is admitted that all the transactions for the two years 1968-69 (the period from 1st November, 1968, to 30th March, 1969) and 1969-70 are covered by similar bills. 2.. The Sales Tax Officer negatived the claim for exemption by the dealer on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in Dyer Meakin Breweries Ltd. v. State of Kerala[1970] 26 S.T.C. 248 (S.C.)., which wa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Kutty Hassan Kutty v. Sales Tax Officer, Ponnani[1967] 19 S.T.C. 278., is applicable to the facts of the case. He said that the cement, it is admitted by the petitioner, is either sold as cement in bulk or in paper packet or in gunny bags; so also the kerosene, which was the commodity with which this court was concerned in M. Kutty Hassan Kutty v. Sales Tax Officer, Ponnani[1967] 19 S.T.C. 278., was sold either in bulk or in tins. The rules that were considered by this court then were identically worded. It was therefore urged that the decision in M. Kutty Hassan Kutty v. Sales Tax Officer, Ponnani[1967] 19 S.T.C. 278., is indistinguishable. We are not satisfied. 6.. Under the Cement Control Order, 1967, the price is fixed separately for .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... are now concerned here only with charges for packing) must include not only the charges for the labour involved in packing but must take in the cost of the material used for packing. No reasons have been stated in the judgment in The State of Madras and Others v. R. Damodaran Chettiar Co.(1) for holding otherwise excepting the assertion that the expression under rule 9(f)(ii) will take in only the cost of services. This view has not been accepted by the Madras High Court in a later ruling in Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Lalgudi, and two Others(2). Counsel for the revenue submitted that the observations relating to the basis of the decision in The State of Madras v. R. Damodaran Chettiar Co.[1966] 18 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X