Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2020 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 512 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxLevy of purchase tax - freight charges or delivery charges paid by the Sugar Mills, Assessee to the Lorry Owners for getting the sugar cane from the fields of the sugar cane growers to the factory gate - inclusion of the charges in purchase price or not - Sellers/Agriculturists are unregistered dealers - TNGST Act - HELD THAT:- The controversy is no longer res integra as this very controversy came to be decided by a Full Bench of this court in the case of CHENGALVARAYAN CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD. & OTHER VERSUS STATE OF TAMIL NADU & OTHER [1996 (7) TMI 522 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] which came to be affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of EID. PARRY (I) LTD. & OTHERS VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES AND ANOTHER [1999 (12) TMI 708 - SUPREME COURT] and later on followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PONNI SUGARS (ERODE) LTD. VERSUS DEPUTY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER [2005 (11) TMI 247 - SUPREME COURT]. It was held by a Full Bench of this court in the case of CHENGALVARAYAN CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD. that if subsidy-whatever name or nomenclature it may assume and whether paid or payable prior to or subsequent to the entering into contract of sale-is linked to the supply of sugarcane, such subsidy and expenses incurred for the transportation of the sugarcane to the factory site-whether incurred by the grower initially and paid by the sugar mills subsequently or incurred by the sugar mills and shown separately in the invoices-by adopting whatever procedure reflecting those amounts in the accounts-shall form part of the price includible in the purchase turnover as such transportation alone makes the passing of property in the sugarcane sold by the grower to the assessee-mills complete. Since the view of the learned Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal is in consonance with the decision of the Full Bench of this Court and that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there are no reason to take a different view as there is no distinction on facts in the present case and the purchase of sugar cane by the Assessee Sugar Mill during the period in question also happened in a similar way and therefore, the mere bifurcation of prices in the invoices to the extent of transport charges or plantation subsidy will not materially affect the aforesaid prevailing legal position. The Tribunal is justified in imposing the purchase tax on the Assessee Sugar Mill on the entire purchase price including the components of price for the sugar cane, plantation subsidy and transportation charges paid by the Assessee for transportation of sugar cane from the sugarcane fields to the factory premises of the Petitioner - appeal dismissed - decided against assessee.
|