2023 (3) TMI 492 - HC - CST, VAT & Sales Tax

Valuation - place of removal - charges incurred for loading, unloading, stacking, and transportation formed part of the taxable turnover or not - charges shown separately would make any difference or not - Jurisdiction of authority for clarification under Section 94 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - HELD THAT:- Annexure A, the purchase order specified the price details fixed, including taxes, excise duty, other levies, freight, insurance, loading, and unloading at the site. It also contained a clause that insists that all the materials that are ordered will have to be fully insured from the time of despatch from the manufacturer to the destination station, including one month's storage, thereafter at the cost of the contractor.

The clauses in Annexures 1 and 2 clearly show that the transfer of title to the goods would take place only on delivery of goods at the customer's place and the customer's obligation to effect payment would arise only after the delivery is effected. Also the provisions of Chapter 3 of the Sale of Goods Act, in particular, section 22 that applies where the contract of sale of specific goods in a deliverable state, including the conditions to do such acts with reference to the goods for the purpose of ascertaining the price, the property does not pass until such act or thing is done.

The law applicable has again been re-iterated in INDIA METERS LIMITED VERSUS STATE OF TAMIL NADU [2010 (9) TMI 878 - SUPREME COURT] where it was held that when the transfer of the property or the goods is to be at the place of the buyer to which the seller is under an obligation to transport the goods, the expenditure incurred by the seller on freight in order to carry the goods from his place of manufacture to the place at which he is required under the contract to deliver, would thus become part of the amount for which the goods are sold by the seller to the buyer and would fall within the scope of "turnover".

The discussions would lead to the irresistible conclusion that Annexure – C order of clarification calls for no interference, and the OT appeal is without merit, and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.