TMI Blog1988 (8) TMI 369X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the High Court was in error. - Civil Appeal No. 2456 of 1988 - - - Dated:- 30-8-1988 - SUBYASACHI MUKHARJI AND KANIA M.H. JJ. S.C. Manchanda, Senior Advocate (Ashok K. Srivastava, Advocate, with him), for the appellant. None appeared for the respondent. -------------------------------------------------- The judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J.- This is an appeal by leave from the judgment and order of the High Court of Allahabad, dated 12th July, 1982. The decision was rendered in a revision by the assessee which was directed against the order of the Sales Tax Tribunal. The year involved is the assessment year 1974-75. The assessee carried on the business of mining and sal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the consideration for the sale of any goods unless any sum allowed as cash discount according to the practice prevailing in the trade, but inclusive of any sum charged for anything done by the dealer in respect of the goods at the time of or before the delivery thereof other than the cost of freight or delivery or the cost of installation in cases where such cost is separately charged. Hence, the short question is whether the price was charged for anything done in respect of the goods at the time of or before the delivery thereof. The Tribunal also found that packing was done at the request of the buyer and that it was a convenient mode of delivery. The buyers had given directions for the quality of packing and it appears from the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of silica was shown separately and the cost of packing was also shown separately. In view of the definition of section 2(h) of the Act, anything which was an integral part included any sum charged for anything done by the dealer in respect of the goods, may form part but anything supplied separately pursuant to a separate order, directions or specifications to the purchaser, could not form part of the sale price of the gunny bags. This was done in order to putting them in deliverable state and incidental to the same. In a slightly different state of facts this question came before this Court in Commissioner of Taxes v. Prabhat Marketing Co. Ltd. [1967] 19 STC 84. There, the respondent sold hydrogenated oil which was exempt from sales ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... td. v. State of Bihar [1987] 65 STC 462. There this Court held that whether there was an implied agreement to sell packing material along with the products contained therein, is a question of fact. In view of the principles enunciated in these two decisions, though the facts were different, and on the basis of the conclusive findings recorded by the Tribunal that there was a contract for packing the silica in sound gunny bags, the cost of packing materials had been realised, we are clearly of the opinion that the High Court was in error. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case the judgment and order of the High Court are set aside and the order of the Tribunal is restored. There will, however, be no order as to costs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
