Packing charges in respect of non-levy cement sales form part of the sale price liable to be taxed under the Central Sales Tax Act, based on the interpretation of section 2(h) and the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Rai Bharat Das & Bros.

DR. A. S. ANAND, C.J.

The three points which were under the consideration of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Madurai, were as follows :

"(i) Whether the turnover of Rs. 98, 16, 869 being the freight charges relating to the transport of levy cement sales are part of sale price liable to be taxed under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ?

(ii) Whether the turnover of Rs. 1, 17, 31, 397 being the packing charges in respect of levy cement sales also form part of sale price under the Central Sales Tax Act ?

(iii) Whether the turnover of Rs. 41, 36, 232 being the packing charges in respect of non-levy cement sales also form part of sale price liable to be taxed under the Central Sales Tax Act ?" *

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that so far as points 1 and 2 are concerned, they stand concluded against the assessee by the judgment of this Court reported in Ramco Cement Distribution Co. (P).) Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu 1982 (51) STC 171

and, therefore, he would not assail the findings of the Tribunal which had followed the law laid down in the Ramco Cement Distribution Co. Ltd. case 1982 (51) STC 171 (Mad.) referred supra in respect of points 1 and 2.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, confined his argument to point 3 to urge that the packing charges in respect of non-levy cement sales cannot form part of the sale price liable to be taxed under the Central Sales Tax Act. We cannot agree. This point was involved and considered by the Apex Court in the decision reported in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Rai Bharat Das & Bros. 1989 AIR(SC) 315, 1988 (4) JT 3, 1988 (71) STC 277, 1988 (2) Scale 1073, 1989 (1) SCC 143, 1988 (S3) SCR 685. In the case before the Supreme Court, the respondent carries on the business of mining and sale of silica sand. Silica sand was supplied to the buyers packed in gunny bags and packing charges were realised from the buyers. The Tribunal had found that there was an implied agreement for selling silica sand in gunny bags. On the basis of that finding, it was found by the Tribunal that packing charges were part of the sale price and were exigible to tax under the Central Sales Tax Act. The High Court in revision had disagreed with the findings of the Tribunal and held that the packing charges could not be included in the sale price. Reversing the decision of the High Court, the Supreme Court held in favour of the findings recorded by the Tribunal that there was an implied contract for packing the silica sand in gunny bags, and that the packing charges realised by the respondent were an integral part of the sale price falling within "any sum charged for anything done by the dealer in respect of the goods" as contemplated by section 2(h) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and, therefore, exigible to sales tax under the Act. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the Rai Bharat Das & Bros. case 1989 AIR(SC) 315, 1988 (4) JT 3, 1988 (71) STC 277, 1988 (2) Scale 1073, 1989 (1) SCC 143, 1988 (S3) SCR 685 was followed by a Full Bench of this Court reported in State of Tamil Nadu v. V. V. Vanniaperumal & Co. (supra) which considered at length and distinguished between pre-sale expenses and post-sale expenses.

4. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the Rai Bharat Das & Bros. case (supra) would squarely be applicable to the case of the assessee with regard to the packing charges in respect of the non-levy cement sales. The packing of the cement was, to effectuate the sale and therefore the packing charges had to be included as an integral part of the sale price. The expression "any sum charges for anything done by the dealer in respect of the goods" in section 2(h) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, squarely covers such cases where packing charges are an integral part of the sale price itself. The Tribunal, therefore, in our opinion, rightly decided point No. 3 also, and we see no reason to interfere. The tax revision case fails and is dismissed.