1952 Supreme(Nagpur) 116
HIGH COURT OF NAGPUR
Sinha, Mudholkar
JETHALAL VIRAJLAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH – Respondent
Miscellaneous Petition No. 88 of 1952
Decided on : 16-10-1952
A V Khare, T P Naik, Advocates
The amount recovered by a dealer from his purchasers in respect of sales tax must be regarded as part of the sale price and has to be taken into account while arriving at a dealer's taxable turnover.
Headnote:
SALES TAX - TURNOVER - SALE PRICE - AMOUNT RECOVERED BY DEALER FROM PURCHASER IN RESPECT OF SALES TAX - WHETHER PART OF SALE PRICE - C.P. AND BERAR SALES TAX ACT (XXI OF 1947), SECS. 2(H), 2(J), 4(1), 5(1).
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a dealer under the C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, challenged the assessment of sales tax on the ground that the amount he received from customers as sales tax could not be included in the taxable turnover.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the amount recovered by a dealer from his purchasers in respect of sales tax must be regarded as part of the sale price and has to be taken into account while arriving at a dealer's taxable turnover.
Issues: Whether the amount recovered by a dealer from his purchasers in respect of sales tax can be included in the taxable turnover.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the definition of 'sale price' in Section 2(h) of the C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, to include any amount charged or realized separately as sales tax from the purchaser by the dealer. The court also referred to Section 4(1) and Section 5(1) of the Act to conclude that the tax is payable by the dealer and not by the purchaser.
Final Decision: The court answered the question referred to it in the affirmative and dismissed the petition.
1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Petitioner is a 'dealer' within the meaning of the definition of that term contained in Section 2(e), C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947.
2. The Regional Assistant Sales Tax Commissioner, Nagpur, assessed the sales tax payable by the Petitioner at Rs. 16,515-15-6 on the basis that his turnover for the period of assessment was Rs. 2,91,788-15-6. According to the Petitioner, his account books showed that the actual sale price realised by him for the commodity which he has sold to his customers axing this period was Rs. 2,75,383-11-3 and that it is this figure which should have hem treated as the taxable turnover by the Assistant Sales Tax Commissioner. The Petitioner admits that in addition to this amount he received from the persons, who purchased various commodities from him, a total sum of Rs. 15,903-4-3, but he says that he received this amount on account of the sales tax which was payable by the purchasers with respect to the goods purchased by them. According to him, this amount cannot be added to the actual sale price received by him and treated as part of the taxable turnover.
3. We may mention here that the figures given by the Petitioner in his petition do not tally with those appearing In the order of assessment passed by the Assistant Sales Tax Commissioner or with those contained in the order in appeal of the Sales Tax Commissioner. As, however, nothing turns on these figures we would accept those stated by the Petitioner in his petition as correct.
4. The point which is raised by the Petitioner before us is that the amount which he has realised from the customers by way of sales tax cannot be treated as part of the taxable turnover and consequently no tax can be recovered in respect of this amount.
5. In Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 247 of 1951 a reference has been made to this Court under Section 23(1), C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, by the Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, on the following question of law: A dealer realises from a purchaser an amount which he calls 'sales tax' in addition to the price he would have recovered from him, had not the Sales Tax Act been in force. Is the additional amount he recovers calling it sales tax, liable to be included in the 'sale price' as defined in Section 2(h) of the Act?
This question is identical with the one which arises in this petition. Our order will therefore govern the disposal of the petition as well as Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 247 of 1951.
6. In order to answer this question it is necessary to examine the relevant provisions of the Sales Tax Act. Section 4(1) of the Act runs thus: Every dealer whose turnover during the year preceding the commencement of this Act exceeded the taxable quantum shall be liable to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this Act on all sales effected after the commencement of this Act.
This Section makes it clear that the tax is payable to the State by the dealer as defined in Section 2(c) of the Act and by none else. This conclusion is reinforced ' by reference to other provisions of the Act. In particular, we would refer to Section 5, which deals with the rate of tax and reads thus:
5(1) the tax payable by a dealer under this Act shall be levied on his taxable turnover at the rate of:
(a) twelve pies in the rupee in relation to the classes of goods mentioned in Part I of Schedule I;
(b) three pies in the rupee in relation to the classes of goods mentioned in Part II of Schedule I;
(c) six pies in the rupee in relation to the classes of goods not included in Schedule I or Schedule II.
'Turnover' is defined as follows in Section 2(j) of the Act 'turnover' means the aggregate of the amounts of sale prices, and parts of sale prices received or receivable by a dealer in respect of the sale or supply of goods or in respect of the sale or supply of goods in the carrying out of any contract, effected or made during the prescribed period.
The definition of 'turnover' l