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

2024 Supreme(All) 1772

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
National Thermal Power Corp. Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner Commercial Tax - Respondent
SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION NO. 80 OF 2013 WITH SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION NO. 81 OF 2013 AND SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION NO. 82 OF 2013.
Decided On : 10-01-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Suyash Agarwal, Advocate
For the respondents: Mr. B.K. Pandey, Additional Chief Standing Counsel

The definition of 'value of goods' under the Act includes charges incurred until entry into the local area, excluding subsequent charges.

Headnote:(A) Uttar Pradesh Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 2007 - Section 2(h) - Definition of 'value of goods' - The definition includes various charges incurred until the goods enter the local area but excludes subsequent charges. The Tribunal must clarify whether unloading costs are incurred before or after entry. (Paras 1, 3, 6)

(B) Revision petitions - Common question of law regarding the determination of value of goods and inclusion of charges - The court remitted the matter to the Tribunal for a fresh decision on specific charges. (Paras 1, 6)

Facts of the case:
The revision petitions raised a common legal question regarding the interpretation of 'value of goods' under the Act, particularly concerning charges incurred before and after the goods enter the local area.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the Tribunal had not clearly determined the nature of unloading costs and remitted the matter for further clarification.

Issues: The main issue was whether the Tribunal should have provided a clear finding on charges incurred before and after the goods entered the local area.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the definition of 'value of goods' includes charges up to the point of entry into the local area, and any subsequent charges should not be included.

Result: Revision petitions disposed of with directions for fresh decision.

JUDGMENT

Shekhar B. Saraf, J.

These revision petitions, raising common question of law, have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. These revision petitions have been admitted by coordinate Bench on the following question of law:-

"Whether the Tribunal being the last fact finding authority ought to have returned a clear finding with respect to charges incurred by the importer till the stage of bringing the goods in the local area and charges incurred inside the local area after its entry; before including such charges in the value of goods defined under section 2(h) Entry Tax Act, 2007?"

2. I have heard Mr. Suyash Agarwal, counsel appearing on behalf of the revisionists and Mr. B.K. Pandey, Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

3. Mr. Agarwal has indicated that the definition of "value of goods" as per the Uttar Pradesh Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was amended retrospectively with effect from November 1, 1999. He has placed reliance on definition of "value of goods" as per Section 2(h) of the Act. The definition reads as under:-

"2. Definitions. - (1) In this Act, -

(h) "value of goods" means the value of any goods as ascertained from original purchase invoice or bill and includes value of packing material, packing and forwarding charges, insurance charges, amounts representing excise duty, countervailing duty, custom duty and other like duties, amount of any fee or tax charged, transport charges, freight charges and any other charges relating to purchase and transportation of such goods into the local area in which goods are being brought or received for consumption, use or sale therein;"

4. In light of the above definition, Mr. Agarwal submits that the value of goods has to be determined till the point the goods enter into the local area only, and any other subsequent charges that are incurred, are not to be added to the value of goods.

5. With regard to the issue of demurrage, and the bank charges, the Tribunal in subsequent years has accepted the contention of the revisionists and held in their favour. In light of the same, the benefit is required to be given for the assessment year in question.

6. With regard to the unloading cost and other charges, the Tribunal has not come to any finding whether the same included unloading prior to entry of the goods into the local area or subsequent to entry into the local area. Accordingly, these issues are required to be remitted to the Tribunal for a fresh decision.

7. The question of law is, accordingly, answered in the affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.

8. The revision petitions are accordingly disposed of with the directions as made above.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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