9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 467X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... LTD. VS. STATE OF ANDRA PRADESH”, (1969 (2) TMI 131 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA). Any amount received and or recovered by the applicant-assessee may be even transportation charges or any other amount received is required to be included in the ‘Sale Price’. Identical question came to be considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “HINDUSTAN SUGAR MILLS LTD.” (Supra). While considering, some what, similar provisions in the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed and held that the amount of freight formed part of the ‘sale price’ within the meaning of the first part of the definition of the term in section 2(p) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act and section 2(h) of the Central Act, so includable in the turnover of the assessee. when the applicant admittedly received the amount of transportation charges through pipeline of crude oil that was sold by the assessee to its sole purchaser, i.e. IOC, from IOC the same was required to be included in the ‘Sale Price’ and is rightly included in the ‘Sale Price’. It is, therefore, rightly held that the applicant is liable to pay the tax on the same. Now, so far as the interest charged under Section 47(4A) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore, was being assessed by the Sales Tax Officer, Ahmedabad. That the assessee was assessed by the Asst. Commissioner, Sales Tax, Ahmedabad, under the provisions of Section 46A of the Act, relating to the aforesaid assessment years. That during the assessment year 1977-78, the Sales Tax Officer, in the Draft Assessment order, proposed to charge extra tax and interest of ₹ 53,48,063/-. Objections were invited, as required under the provisions of the law, and the assessee filed the same. At that time, the assessee disputed the levy of tax in respect of transportation charges through pipeline of crude oil that was sold by the assessee to its sole purchaser, i.e. the Indian Oil Corporation. The assessee also objected to the charging of interest under Section 47(4A) of the Act, in respect of the ad hoc payment made on account of sanction of higher rate of gas by the Government of India in respect of the adjustment of ₹ 24,35,432/-, which were paid in excess in the year 1976-77 and which adjustment was allowed to be made by a Refund Payment Order. The learned Asst. Commissioner did not accept any of the contention on the aforesaid points and passed the order of assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 69 of the Act. 6. Now, so far as question No.1 is concerned, i.e. whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the amount of transportation charges (as discussed in the Statement of the Case) form part of the turnover of sale assessable to tax under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, for the assessment years 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1979-80?, Shri. Kaji, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant, has vehemently submitted that the definition of 'sale price' contained in Section 2(29) of the Act does not include freight or the transportation charges. It is, further, submitted by Shri. Kaji that as per the definition of 'sale price', defined under Section 2(29) of the Act, Sale Price include amount of consideration paid or payable to dealer for any sale made including any sum charged for anything done by the dealer in respect of the goods at the time or before the sell thereof. It is submitted that, therefore, in the definition of 'sale price' under Section 2 (29)of the Act, there is no specific inclusion of freight and or transport charges. Shri. Kaji, learned Advocate, has tried to disting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as such, there was no default on the part of applicant, and therefore, the Sale Tax Officer / adjudicating authority ought not to have charged interest under Section 47(4A) of the Act with effect from 14.09.1981. Making the above submission, it is requested to answer the question No.2 in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 9.1 On the other hand, Shri. Gandhi, learned AGP, has submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the authority has rightly charged interest on the additional / revised price with effect from 14.09.1981. It is submitted that the liability to pay the tax and or eventuality to pay the tax under the Sales Tax would arise on the date on which the sale takes place. It is submitted that, therefore, when the Government of India revised the prices retrospectively in the assessment year 1979-80, with effect from 14.09.1981, at least, the liability to pay the Sales Tax on the revised prices, so far as the applicant is concerned, would arise from that date, i.e. 14.09.1981. It is submitted that, therefore, contention on behalf of the applicant that they are liable to pay the interest on the revised price with effect from 06.05.1982, i.e. the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount representing labour charges for such execution; (c) in relation to the delivery of goods on hire purchase or any system of payment by installments, the amount of valuable consideration payable to a person for such delivery]; 11. Therefore, any amount received and or recovered by the applicant-assessee may be even transportation charges or any other amount received is required to be included in the Sale Price . Identical question came to be considered by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of HINDUSTAN SUGAR MILLS LTD. (Supra). While considering, some what, similar provisions in the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, the Hon ble Supreme Court has observed and held that the amount of freight formed part of the sale price within the meaning of the first part of the definition of the term in section 2(p) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act and section 2(h) of the Central Act, so includable in the turnover of the assessee. 12. Even, the case of HYDERABAD ASBESTOS CEMENT PRODUCTS LTD. (Supra), upon which the reliance has been placed on by Shri. Kaji, it was a case, wherein, under the terms of the contract, there was no obligation on the part of the company to pay the freight a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
