Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2010 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (6) TMI 739 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxWhether, on the true and correct interpretation of the definition of 'sale price', as contained in clause (h) of section 2 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the insurance charges will not form part of sale price, because the parties did not intend it to be so? Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in taking a stand different from that taken by the Division Bench of the Tribunal and refusing to refer the issue of insurance charges to a Larger Bench for decision, on the ground that 'had the documentary evidence been placed before the Division Bench, the Division Bench would have come to a different conclusion' when the Division Bench has based its decision only on the interpretation of statutory definition of 'sale price' as contained in clause (b) of section 2 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and has nowhere in its judgment stated that its decision in respect of insurance charges is on account of non-production of any documentary evidence? Held that:- The Tribunal, after examining the entire transaction between the respondent and its buyers, on the basis of the documents produced before it by the respondent, has come to a correct conclusion that the insurance is not intended to be treated as part of the "sale price" and the insurance charges have to be borne by the buyers independently and separately and such insurance charges are not to be included in the sale price. In view thereof, the submissions made on behalf of the Revenue cannot be accepted. We are also of the view that the Tribunal, in view of the evidence submitted by the respondent, was entitled to take a different view from its earlier view, pertaining to the same issue, in respect of the different assessment years. We therefore answer the questions set out in paragraph 2 of this judgment in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the respondent and against the Revenue
|