1999 (12) TMI 708 - SUPREME COURT

Whether planting subsidy paid by the appellants to the cane growers can be said to be a part of the price of sugarcane purchased by it from them and can legitimately be included in the turnover of the appellants?

Whether the transport subsidy charges in excess of 30 kms. paid by the appellants to third party lorry owners for transporting sugarcane pursuant to the State Government’s direction can be aggregated with the price of sugarcane and included in the turnover of the appellants?

Whether levy of penalty was justified in view of the facts and circumstances of these cases?

Held that:- Appeal partly allowed. As held that the appellants were not right in not including the amounts of planting subsidy and transport subsidy in the taxable turnover, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it would not be correct to say that they had acted deliberately in defiance of law or that their conduct was dishonest or they had acted in conscious disregard of their obligation under the Sales Tax Act. The Sales Tax Authorities were, therefore, wrong in passing the orders of penalty and upholding the same. The High Court also, in our opinion, committed an error in upholding the orders of penalty. In the result, these appeals are partly allowed. The order of the High Court and the orders of the Sales Tax Authorities imposing and upholding levy of penalty are set aside. Only to that extend the appellants succeed and their appeals are allowed. The judgment of the High Court in respect to the planting subsidy and transport subsidy is upheld.