9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (9) TMI 573X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment year 1980-81. As the facts of the cases are similar and law involved in them is same, these two applications for revision are being decided by this common judgment. 2.. The facts of the cases may be summarised thus: The petitioner is a manufacturer of sophisticated scientific equipments. Its factory is situated at Makhupura, Ajmer. Prices of equipments were ex-factory, Ajmer. Inter-State sales of the various equipments were effected during the said periods. The petitioner charged I/G charges at the rate of 3 per cent of the sale price for safe delivery of the equipments from certain buyers. This was done on their request. During the years 1979-80 and 1980-81, Rs. 19,155 and Rs. 31,927 were collected as I/G charges. The assessin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... horities rightly held that they were parts of the sale prices. 5.. The only question for considerations in these two cases is whether the I/G charges were part of the sale price as defined in section 2(h) of the CST Act and 2(p) of the RST Act. It would be the best to quote these definitions here. They run as under: Section 2(h), CST Act: " 'Sale price' means the amount payable to a dealer as consideration for the sale of any goods, less any sum allowed as cash discount according to the practice normally prevailing in the trade, but inclusive of any sum charged for anything done by the dealer in respect of the goods at the time of or before the delivery thereof other than the cost of freight or delivery or the cost of installation in ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ansportation of the equipments purchased by them. 7.. In both the cases, the petitioner has filed a photostat copies of printed bill and despatch memo. They have not been controverted. The important Note No. 3 given at the bottom of the bill runs as under: "We are not responsible for any loss or damage in transit unless goods are sent under our indemnity/guarantee system." 8.. Despatch memo shows that the goods were sent by train and the freight was to be paid by the buyer. This supports the plea of the petitioner that the price of equipments sold was ex-factory, Ajmer. The goods stood delivered to the buyers as soon as they were delivered to the railway authorities for transportation as provided in section 39(1), Sale of Goods Act. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
