9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (4) TMI 293X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958?" 2.. The assessee is a paper mill situated at Amlai, district Shahdol. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of different varieties of paper. The relevant period for this case is 1st April, 1966, to 31st March, 1967. The assessee is a registered dealer both under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958. In the assessment proceedings under the Central Act, the assessee claimed that a sum of Rs. 33,96,452 which was paid as freight by the purchasers, should not be included in the sale price and consequently in the turnover. Similarly, in the assessment proceedings under the State Act, the assessee claimed that the amount of Rs. 46,625 paid as freight b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... costs for despatch of goods by any other means shall be borne by the buyer. All risks including damages, loss, pilferage, theft, fire accident, etc., shall pass on to the buyer with the delivery of goods to carrier or his agent and the company shall in no way be responsible for any or all loss or damage notwithstanding that the goods were not despatched on carrier's risk. (7) Demurrage incurred on the consignment due to non-payment, late payment or late delivery of the documents are to be borne by the buyer. In case the documents are not retired, the company shall hold the buyer responsible for all other consequences arising thereof." 4.. The definition of "sale price" in both the Acts is nearly the same. We may, therefore, only quote the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter, making the railway the agent of the purchaser. The freight in this class of cases is payable by the purchaser though the price agreed upon is f.o.r. destination railway station. The price of the goods receivable in such cases is thus the f.o.r. destination price less the amount of freight payable by the purchaser. Both these types of cases have been discussed in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the judgment in Hindustan Sugar Mills v. State of Rajasthan [1979] 43 STC 13 (SC); AIR 1978 SC 1496. The question before us, therefore, is whether the case before us falls in the first or the second category. Having considered the terms of the contract contained in the sale note, we are of the opinion that although the price charged was f.o.r. destination ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court in Orient Paper Mills Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1975] 35 STC 84. It is true that the sales tax in the bills was charged on the price which included the freight, but that was also the case in Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Product Ltd.'s case [1969] 24 STC 487 (SC) and this circumstance by itself cannot lead to the inference that freight formed part of the sale price. 6.. The learned counsel for the department relied upon the case of Birla Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. [1972] 29 STC 639. This was a case relating to sale of cement governed by the Cement Control Order. The decision in this case has to be understood in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Sugar Mills v. State of Rajastha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
