Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2009 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (3) TMI 951 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxWhether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the expenses incurred by the State or agencies of the Food Corporation of India after acquiring or purchasing the goods before delivery to the petitioner-dealer could form part of gross turnover and be subjected to tax? Whether the foodgrains procured by the Food Corporation of India under the levy order amounts to sale/purchase and can be subjected to tax? Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the bardana supplied by the Food Corporation of India along with foodgrains can be subjected to tax? Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the market fee can be subjected to tax under the provisions of the Act which had been recovered from the purchasing dealer, viz., Food Corporation of India and ratio of the law laid down in the Supreme Court (Anand Swarup Mahesh Kumar v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1980 (9) TMI 238 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] was not applicable to the facts of the case? Held that:- The provision is illustrative with regard to the aggregate of the amounts of purchases and parts of purchases actually made by any dealer. Therefore, it would include the price of bag, labour charges, stitching charges, price of jute thread, dammi and carriage, etc. In that regard, the contention of the learned State counsel deserves to be accepted that there is no delivery taken before weighment, which is not possible without packing the agricultural produce in a gunny bag. We also find substance in the contention of the learned counsel that even stitching and labour incurred for all these activities have to be included for effective delivery of the goods, which would include carriage also. Therefore, question No. 1 deserves to be answered in favour of the Revenue and against the dealerFCI. Both the questions 2 and 3 are covered by the judgment of the honourable Supreme Court in Food Corporation of India v. State of Kerala [1997 (1) TMI 459 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] , thus liable to be answered in favour of the Revenue and against the dealer-FCI. Once the element of market fee is not to form part of the consideration then it cannot be included in the total turnover for the purposes of realising the tax. Therefore, the additional question of law is liable to be answered in favour of the dealer-FCI and against the Revenue
|