SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(SC) 402

2005(4) Supreme 677
Supreme Court of India
S.N. Variava, Dr. AR. Lakshmanan & S.H. Kapadia, JJ.
Commissioner of Cus. & Ex., Bangalore —Appellant
versus
Sujata Textile Mills Ltd. —Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 1499 of 2000
With
C.A. Nos. 2677 of 2000, 5003-5004 of 2001, 196 of 2002, 4320 of 2003, 4686 of 2004 and 617 of 2005
Decided on 3-3-2005

Headnote:Central Excise Act, 1944—Section 4(4)(d)(ii)—Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957—Section 18—Value not to include amount of duty of excise, sales tax and other taxes payable on goods—Turnover tax under Karnataka Sales Tax Act was to be paid by dealer and not to be passed on to customer—Tribunal rightly held that this tax so long payable was to be deducted—Department could ask for proof for tax actually paid—Department could not disallow deduction on ground that invoice did not show element of turnover tax. (Paras 3 to 5)

Order

Application for amendment of cause title in Civil Appeal No. 4686 of 2004 is allowed. Amendment to be carried out forthwith.

2. All these Appeals raise a common question and therefore are being disposed of by this common order. Under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the value is not to include the amount of duty of excise, sales tax and other taxes if any payable on goods. Under Section 18 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 a registered dealer has to pay a tax known as ‘turnover tax’ and by virtue of sub-section (3) of Section 18 he is not permitted to pass on that tax to the customer. The question is whether at the time of working out valuation of the goods, under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the turnover tax can be deducted. To be remembered that at this stage it will not have been actually paid.

3. The Tribunal has, in all these cases, held that so long as the tax is payable it can be deducted. We see no infirmity in this ­reasoning.

4. However, a clarification is sought from this Court as to whether ultimately the Department can ask for proof that the tax is actually paid. There is no dispute that the Depart­ment can always call for proof that the amount is actually paid. If it is later on found that the amount is not actually paid the Department can, after following the procedure prescribed, revalue the goods.

5. In some of the matters the Department has sought to disallow on the ground that the invoice did not show the element of turnover tax. In our view, this action on the part of the Department is not sustainable. The invoice would never show the element of turnover tax, since the same cannot be recovered from the customers.

6. All these Appeals stand disposed of with the above clarifications. There will be no order as to costs.

Appeals disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top