9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 892X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts of the present case, was charged separately and goods were insured on the request of the customers. On these facts, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the insurance charge shall not form part of the turnover. Appeal allowed in part. - - - - - Dated:- 22-7-2008 - PRAKASH KRISHNA , J. PRAKASH KRISHNA J. The present revision is directed against the order dated December 18, 1997 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Ghaziabad in Second Appeal No. 403 of 1993 relevant to the assessment year 1986-87 whereby and whereunder the Tribunal has allowed the appeal preferred before it by the dealer-opposite party and held that the amount of security and insurance charges as realised from the customers by the dealeropposite party is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In this regard the assessing authority, on examination of the account books, has found that the dealer-opposite party has charged two per cent to four per cent as security in each bill. The stand taken by the dealer is that the security amount has been charged with a view to ensure timely payment by the purchasing dealer, the loss of interest for the late payment of the price thus set-off against the interest amount earned on such security. The assessing authority was of the view that the said amount formed part of turnover and has been separately shown in the bills just to avoid the payment of trade tax due on the part of the sale price. Without making much discussion in the order, the Tribunal took the view that since the account books o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmission payable by a purchaser of the goods to the commission agent is included in the term of purchases as held by the apex court in Anand Swarup Mahesh Kumar v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1980] 46 STC 477. Similar principle will apply in respect of the so-called security charges . The learned counsel for the dealer-opposite party could not place any material to take a different view from the above. He could submit only this much that the said amount is lying with the dealer-opposite party and the dealer-opposite party is liable to refund the same to the customers on demand. There is nothing on record before this court to substantiate the said plea that the so-called security amount has ever been refunded or its refund was claimed by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
