Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2008 (7) TMI 896

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lers. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that the Tax Board having decided on these materials and evidence before it that contract in question was ex-works and not f.o.r. destination, these findings of facts are not found to be perverse in any manner and are not required to be disturbed in the revisional jurisdiction. Freight charges charged from the purchaser and dealers in contract of ex-works sale by way of debit notes was not exigible to sales tax under the provisions of the CST Act, 1956. See Hindustan Sugar Mills Ltd. [1978 (8) TMI 186 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. Revision petitions filed by the Revenue dismissed . - - - - - Dated:- 2-7-2008 - VINEET KOTHARI DR. , J. Dr. VINEET KOTHARI J. These two revision petitions .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the delivery thereof other than the cost of freight or delivery or the cost of installation in cases where such cost is separately charged. The learned Tax Board relied upon the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan [1979] 43 STC 13 while allowing the appeal of the assessee. Being aggrieved by the decision of the said appeal, the Revenue has filed the present revision petitions before this court. Mr. Rishab Sancheti for Mr. V.K. Mathur, Standing Counsel for the Revenue, tried to take this court through the findings of the assessing authority and submitted that since the company, respondent-assessee, charged different prices from the purchasers in the same destinat .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... that merely on the basis of the fact that the assessee-company might have charged different price per cement bag subject to the maximum price limit set by the Cement Control Order in force during the relevant period, it could not have led to the conclusion that the freight was part of the sale price. He also relied upon the exclusion part of the definition of sale price defined in section 2(h) of the CST Act quoted above which clearly states that sale price will be other than the cost of freight or delivery or the cost of installation in case where such cost is separately charged . He submitted that even if the arrangement of the transportation is made by the assessee, respondent-company, if such freight charges are separately charge .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... amount of freight payable by the purchaser. That would be the consideration payable by the purchaser to the dealer for the sale of the goods and the amount of freight being payable by the purchaser would not be included in the 'sale price' within the meaning of the first part of the definition. The position would be the same even if the dealer pays the freight and obtains railway receipt 'freight pre-paid' and claims the full f.o.r. destination railway station price in the bill. The amount representing freight would not be payable as part of the consideration for the sale of the goods but by way of reimbursement of the freight which was payable by the purchaser but in fact disbursed by the dealer and hence it would not form .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ated that the contract is ex-works and not f.o.r. destination. In the list of purchasers quoted in the assessment order even if the price is shown to be inclusive of freight in branch, to head office communications of the assessee, respondent-company, it cannot mean that such is the contract between the respondent, assessee-company and the purchasing dealers. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that the Tax Board having decided on these materials and evidence before it that contract in question was ex-works and not f.o.r. destination, these findings of facts are not found to be perverse in any manner and are not required to be disturbed in the revisional jurisdiction. That as far as the question of law involved in the case is conce .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates