TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter 'the RVAT Act, 2003') against the order dated 4-7-2012 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board Ajmer (hereinafter 'the Tax Board'). Thereunder the inclusion of Mandi Fee payable by the purchaser to the market Committee and not the seller albeit accounted for through him under Rule 59 of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Marketing Rules, 1963 (hereinafter 'the 1963 Rules') promulgated under Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Marketing Act, 1962 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1962') within the "sale price" as defined in Section 2(36) of the RVAT Act, 2003 has been held to be illegal and set aside. FACTS: The business premises of the respondent assessee was surveyed on 25-6-2010 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the seller. The Tax Board held that mere reimbursement of mandi fee paid by the seller on behalf of the purchaser of the agricultural product i.e. Ghee, was not liable to have to be included as a part of the seller's consideration for the sale i.e. "sale price" under section 2 (36) of the RVAT Act, 2003. The Tax Board relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of State of Punjab v. Chhabra Rice Mills [2006] 144 STC 1 and State of Punjab v. Guranditta Mal Shrauti Prakash [2004] 9 Tax Update 103 to buttress its conclusions. It was categorically held that consequently no tax or interest was payable qua the mandi fee paid by the seller on behalf of the purchaser and subsequently reimbursed to it. Further relyi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... andi fee from the "sale price". It was submitted that in this view of the matter conclusions of the assessing authority as also the appellate authority in holding that the mandi fee under the Rules of 1963 collected by the seller for payment of the market fee albeit on behalf of the purchaser constituted part of "sale price" and non-payment of tax thereon was to be visited by recovery of tax short paid, interest and penalty was legal and proper. The submission is that the Tax Board erred in holding to the contrary. It is therefore prayed that the impugned order dated 04-07-2012 passed by the Tax Board be set aside and that of the assessing authority passed on 31-8-2010 as upheld by the appellate authority on 30-5-2011 be restored. Mr. R.C. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in a sale transaction fundamentally a matter of contract between the seller and buyer and the sale price be determinable not on what passes as consideration but also on the other expenses incurred by the buyer elsewhere for the sale being facilitated. Aside of the aforesaid, in my considered opinion the issue agitated in the instant revision petition is wholly covered by the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Chhabra Rice Mills (supra) and Guranditta Mal Shrauti Prakash (supra) wherein it has been categorically held on principle that where the market fee is payable by the buyer and the seller merely deposits the said fee on behalf of the buyer and reimburses himself, the market fee cannot form part of the sale considera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be paid by the purchaser under the Rules of 1963 to the Mandi Samiti for the infrastructure created by it for facilitating a transaction i.e. it is a charge independent of the privity of contract between the seller to the purchaser and not a part of the consideration paid to the seller by the buyer. The market fee charged by the Mandi Samiti is not a levy on the seller and thus cannot constitute statutory levy within the meaning of Section 2(36) of the RVAT Act, 2003 liable to be included in the sale price. Further in case of M/s. George Oakes (P.) Ltd. v. State of Madras AIR 1962 SC 1037 a Constitution bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that where in law tax is on the buyer and the dealer a mere collecting agency, it w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|