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

1968 Supreme(Mad) 369

VEERASWAMI, RAMAPRASADA RAO
Srinivasa Timber Depot and Others – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Choolai Division, Madras-29, and Others – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:S. V. Subramaniam, K. J. Chandran, Advocates.

Judgment :-

VEERASWAMI, J.

These petitions raise a common point and have, therefore, been heard together. The question is whether what is described as lot cooly charges paid on a percentage basis by the customers to the different assessees form part of the turnover chargeable to sales tax. These charges were not included as being taxable in the initial assessments, but they were reopened and the charges, as forming part of the turnover, were subjected to tax. The typical reasoning of the revenue for doing so is that the amount was charged and paid at the time of sale "along with the price of the goods" and so, it formed part of the turnover within the meaning of the definition of "turnover", An additional reason in support of that view was that lot cooly could not also fall within the scope of any of the items for which deduction was provided by rule 6 of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules, 1959. Broadly, therefore, the view maintained by the revenue is that charges, which may well be described as pre-sale charges, should be treated as part of the consideration for a sale and the lot charges partook of that character.

The charges appear to be paid by the customers, no doubt, at the t



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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top