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

1961 Supreme(Mad) 369

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JAGADISAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SRINIVASAN
S. Mariappa Nadar and Others - Appellant
Versus
State of Madras - Respondent
Case No : NO
Decided On : 13 December 1961

Advocates Appeared:T. V. Balakrishnan, S. Swaminathan, K. Ramagopal, V. Venkataraman, C. Kothandaraman, Reddy, Row, Advocates.

Judgment :-

SRINIVASAN, J.

Certain common questions arise in these petitions. The assessments in question are under the Central Sales Tax Act for the year 1957-58. In order to understand the points in controversy, the facts relating to one petition will be set out. Though there are minor differences in the details relating to the other petitions, the questions for determination are not different.

T.C. No. 108 of 1959. - The assessee manufactures matches and sells the product of his factory both inside the Madras State and to dealers outside the State. He is a registered dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act. According to the petitioner, when he sells the matches, he invoices only the sale value of the matches, that is to say, he does not include in the invoice the excise duty which is payable on the goods. He prepares a separate debit note on the buyer for this excise duty and collects that amount from the buyer. In respect of the turnover, the petitioner returned a net turnover of only Rs. 4, 43, 000 and odd, representing the sale price of the matches, exclusive of the excise duty paid by him, and deducting also the freight charges incurred. A sum of Rs. 10, 85, 300 had been paid by way of excise duty and collected by the petitioner from the buyers outside the State on foot of separate debit notes referred to. The petitioner contended before the assessing authority that this amount of excise duty did not form part of the sale price. But this contention was overruled and the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer assessed the net turnover liable to assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act at Rs. 15, 17, 631, and the tax payable thereon at Rs. 15, 176. An appeal was taken to the Commercial Tax Officer before whom also it was claimed that the excise duty was paid on behalf of the buyer, and though it was recovered by a separate debit note it was entered in a separate ledger and did not form part of the sale consideration. It was alleged that it was agreed between the buyer and the seller that only the value of the matches was to be paid. It was further contended that since the Central Sales Tax Act has to be administered in the same manner as the Madras General Sales Tax Act, the excise duty paid to the Central Government being eligible for deduction from the turnover of the dealer under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, a similar relief should be granted in the assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act as well. These contentions were examined by the Commercial Tax Officer who came to the conclusion that the method employed by the petitioner in issuing invoices and debit notes did not alter the true nature of the transaction which was that the consideration for the sale of the goods included the amount of excise duty paid on the goods. The further contention that excise duty should be exempted from the turnover was also rejected on the ground that the rules framed under the Central Sales Tax Act did not provide for any such exclusion.It would suffice to mention that the further appeals to the Tribunal also failed.

It is in these circumstances that the present petitions have come before this Court. A feature that obtains in some of these cases is that no separate debit note is issued in respect of the excise duty. But what is done by the petitioners in those cases is to record as a footnote to the invoice the amount of excise duty paid in respect of the goods. In a few of the cases again, though an inclusive price has been charged in respect of the goods, that is, inclusive of the freight in question, a footnote is added to the invoices furnishing the number of the railway receipt and the amount of the freight. It is claimed that in these cases, the freight should be deducted from the turnover as it does not form part of the sale consideration.

It has been stated before us that in T.C. Nos. 108 to 111 of 1959, 56 of 1960 and 35 of 1960, an invoice for what is claimed to be the sale consideration of the goods is issued followed up by a deb






























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