JUDGMENT

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, C.J. - Interference declined by the learned Single Judge in the writ petitions filed by the Appellants/Assesses against the proceedings taken by the Departmental Authorities in causing reassessment of the tax payable under the relevant provisions of Chhattisgarh Vanijyik Kar Adhiniyam, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act, 1994') is put to challenge in these appeals.

2. The basis for the challenge is mainly on three grounds;

(A) That, the freight charges do not form part of the 'sale price' defined under Section 2(u) of the Act, 1994 and hence not taxable;

(B) That, 'mere change of opinion' of the Assessing Officer is not a ground to initiate reassessment proceedings in terms of Section 28 of the Act, 1994 and further;

(C) That, if at all any tax is to be paid on the freight charges as well, by virtue of the specific terms agreed between the Appellants/ Suppliers/ Dealers and the Respondent-Bhilai Steel Plant (BSP) / Buyer, it has to be shifted to the shoulders by the Respondent-BSP.

3. The legal and factual aspects are allegedly not considered by the learned Single Judge properly. It is stated that a mistake has been committed in placing undue reliance on the verdict passed by the Apex Court in Hindustan Sugar Mills Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others, (1978) 4 SCC 271 , where the finding was based on the 'control orders' issued by the State which governed the field and not applicable to the cases in hand by virtue of very nature of the commodities sold and transported.

4. The Appellants are engaged in the trade of selling Dolomite, Quartzite, Runner Sand, Silica etc. On satisfaction of the credentials, an agreement has been executed between the Appellants and the Respondent-BSP for the sale of Dolomite, specifically agreeing to the unit sale price ex-mines, the royalty / cess payable, the rate and the quantum of tax to be satisfied and also the 'freight charge', to be billed separately and to be borne by the Buyer. It was accordingly, that the goods were being sold and transported by the Appellants and due payments were being effected by the BSP without any complaint.

5. On filing return, the assessment was finalized by the Commercial Tax Officer fixing the taxable turnover in terms of Section 2(w) of the Act, 1994, and showing the tax and such other payments to be effected in this regard. There was no grievance for the Appellants in any manner, but the things took a different turn when the Assessing Officer, based on some audit objection, sought to issue a notice, proposing reassessment in terms of Section 28 of the Act, 1994, for the reason that the 'freight charges' escaped assessment and it was to be included as part of the 'sale price'. The Appellants filed objections which however, came to be turned down and the reassessment proceedings were finalized. This was challenged by availing the statutory remedy, but it did not turn to be fruitful, ultimately leading to the writ petitions.

6. The prayers were vehemently opposed from the part of the State/Revenue contending that the 'freight charges' were from part of 'sale price' as borne by the terms of the agreement. Admittedly, the said portion had not suffered any tax in the original round of assessment and was never shown as part of the turnover by the Assesses. The mistake came to the notice of the Assessing Officer only on raising objections in the internal audit. Immediately on coming to know of the same, notice was issued proposing to effect reassessment in terms of Section 28 of the Act, 1994. It was after affording an opportunity of hearing to the Appellants/Assesses, that the proceedings were finalized, which hence was stated as strictly in conformity with the relevant provisions of the law and the facts disclosed from the materials on record.

7. During the course of hearing before the learned Single Judge, both the sides so