TMI Blog1997 (3) TMI 484X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the bottles to the retailers or the consumers in any event. - Civil Appeal No. 3172 of 1988, - - - Dated:- 4-3-1997 - AHMADI A.M., SUHAS CHANDRA SEN AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR JJ. Civil Appeal No. 3172 of 1988, Civil Appeal No. 44, Civil Appeal No. 45, Civil Appeal No. 445, Civil Appeal No. 446, Civil Appeal No. 447, Civil Appeal No. 4362 of 1984, Civil Appeal No. 3173-3176 of 1988, Civil Appeal No. 5553, Civil Appeal No. 5554 of 1990, Civil Appeal No. 5593, Civil Appeal No. 5594 of 1990, H.N. Salve, Senior Advocate (Sunil Gupta and Mrs. A.K. Verma, Advocates [for M/s. J.B. Dadachanji Co., Advocates] with him), for the respondent in Civil Appeals Nos. 3172 of 1988, 44 and 45 of 1984 and 3174 to 3176 of 1988. A.K. Gangu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied, a separate charge was made as deposits at the rate of 40 paise per bottle or Rs. 4.80 per dozen of bottles. The question that came up for consideration was whether these deposits were liable to be treated as part of the assessee's sales turnover for the purpose of levy of sales tax. The assessing authority was of the view that there was a sale of the bottles by U.B., to the purchaser and the deposit amount had to be included in the turnover and taxed. The Tribunal, however, took the view that the receipts were only deposits and not price realised on sale of the bottles. The deposit amount could not be taxed in any way as price of bottles. 2.. Before the High Court, the contention of the State was that the transactions were liable to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the bottles. If the bottles were not returned, the amounts were forfeited. But if the bottles were returned, the amount was refunded to the consumer. In all such cases, it cannot be said that there was a sale of the bottles in the first instance, and thereafter, when the bottles were returned, a resale took place. 5.. We are of the view that the High Court in the facts of this case, has come to a correct decision. The bottles were supplied initially by U.B. to the assessee who was a distributor. The finding of fact by the Tribunal is that the assessee had to deposit certain amounts for taking delivery of the liquor in bottles. The clear understanding was that when the bottles were returned, U.B. would refund the amount of the deposits. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bottles also took place when the consumers returned the bottles to the dealers. Therefore, the consumers will be liable to pay sales tax when they return the bottles by taking back the deposits. This proposition was countered by arguing that there was a single point tax on sale of bottles. If that be so, then the charge of tax, if any, would fall on the first sale by the principal, i.e., United Brewery Company Limited. The assessee was a middle-man and could not be made liable to pay sales tax on account of "sale" of the bottles to the retailers or the consumers in any event. 8.. This appeal is without any merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs. Civil Appeals Nos. 44-45/84, 445-447/84, 4362/84, 3173-3176/88 and 5553- 5554/9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
