9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (1) TMI 509X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... undnut kernel and 16,858 gunny bags were with reference to rice. Of the abovesaid 7,060 bags, 5,725 bags were taxed at 4 per cent since the relevant sales of kernel were covered by valid C form declarations and the rest of the gunny bags, viz., 1,335 bags in relation to groundnut kernel together with the abovesaid entire 16,858 gunny bags in relation to rice, were taxed at 10 per cent since there was no C form declarations therefor. 4.. The value of the abovesaid 23,918 gunnies was estimated at Rs. 71,754 at the rate of Rs. 3 per gunny. Aggrieved by the assessment on the abovesaid estimated value of gunnies, the assessee preferred appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. But, since the Appellate Assistant Commissioner also agreed with the finding of the assessing authority and dismissed the appeal, the assessee preferred second appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the conclusion of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the assessing authority that the abovesaid gunny bags used as containers of groundnut kernel and rice were chargeable to sales tax, was unsustainable and allowed the appeal. Aggrieved the State has preferred this revision. 5.. The re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there is no evidence to show that there was such an implied agreement. No doubt, even at the outset, we must state that onus lies on the Revenue to establish that there was such an implied agreement [vide also Lalchandra Shyam Sunder v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1988] 68 STC 225 (MP)]. But, in our view that burden has been discharged by the Revenue in this case, particularly in the light of the following significant observation of the Supreme Court in Raj Sheel v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1989] 74 STC 379 and other decided cases and other factual factors. No doubt, that is a case, where section 6-C of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 providing a legal fiction that the packing material (container) shall be deemed to have been sold with the goods (contents). The challenge there was against the assessment based on the abovesaid legal fiction. In that context, the Supreme Court made the following significant observation: Turning to section 6-C of the Act, it seems to envisage a case where it is the goods which are sold and there is no actual sale of the packing material. The section provides by legal fiction that the packing material shall be deemed to have been sold a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reme Court observations, there is no difficulty in holding that when the abovesaid sales of groundnut kernel and rice were effected, there was at least an implied agreement to sell the abovesaid gunny bags also and the Tribunal, despite the abovesaid features, erred in observing that there was no evidence to show that there was no such implied agreement between the parties to sell the gunny bags also. No doubt, learned counsel for the assessee sought to contend that the rate per gunny bag at Rs. 3 was only an estimate. But the said learned counsel has not shown any serious challenge having been made against the abovesaid estimate made by the assessing authorities regarding the price of the gunny bags used. 8(a). Further, in actuality in our view, it must be held that there were actually composite transactions of sale, covering not only groundnut kernel, but also of the gunny bags relating thereto, in one case, and rice and the gunny bags relating thereto, in the other case. Even in State of Tamil Nadu v. V.V. Vanniaperumal Co. [1990] 76 STC 203, a Full Bench of this Court held, in the context of sale of oil, that the bargain of sale was of tin of oil and the goods sold were c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... art of sale price as defined in section 2(h) of the Act, because the expression any sum charged for anything done by the dealer in respect of the goods used therein squarely cover such charges as packing was an integral element of transaction of sale and packing charges were integral part of the sale price. 9.. In this connection, we must point out that the abovesaid argument of learned counsel for the assessee in the context of the abovesaid definitions is devoid of force and not acceptable, since sale price as per the said definition, as applicable to the facts similar to the present case, is sale price for a composite transaction, wherein there are both sales of contents and the container. The Supreme Court also held likewise in another earlier decision in Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Rai Bharat Das Bros. [1988] 71 STC 277 (SC) which was a case of sale of sand packed in sound gunny bags. [Vide also Jamana Flour Oil Mill (P.) Ltd. v. State of Bihar [1987] 65 STC 462 (SC), where also, the Supreme Court held in a case of sale of wheat products in gunny bags that there was an implied contract for sale of gunny bags and the turnover of gunny bags was taxable.] Furth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
