TMI Blog1985 (1) TMI 305X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mercial Taxes Officer in this regard held that the definition of "sale price" was very wide and the assessee was not entitled to take shelter of ignorance. The assessee aggrieved against the order of the Commercial Taxes Officer, filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals-1), Commercial Taxes, Jaipur. The Deputy Commissioner vide order dated June 13, 1972 dismissed the appeal so far as the above amount is concerned. An argument was raised on behalf of the assessee before the Deputy Commissioner that the aforesaid amount was different from the amount of commission charges. It was submitted that this amount was received on account of services rendered by the assessee to his principals. It was also submitted that the amount of adhat is treated to be a part of the sale price and tax is payable on such amount, but the amount which the assessee has received by way of "other charges" has been shown separately and not as a part of the sale price and as such no tax liability can arise on such amount. The Deputy Commissioner held that the assessee failed to show as to for what services the assessee had received this amount. The assessee has received this amount by way of adhat f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the turnover of Rs. 24,302.50 shown as "other charges". The department then filed an application under section 15 of the Act for referring three questions for the opinion of this Court. The Board of Revenue by order dated January 9, 1978 referred the only question mentioned above for the opinion of this Court and we are called upon to decide the above question only. It was contended by Mr. Bapna, learned counsel for the department, that the assessee was wrongly paying tax on purchase price of coke, but should have paid on the sale price. Besides that, the assessee had been charging some amount as "other charges" which during the relevant period amounted to Rs. 24,302.50. The assessee had not included the aforesaid amount in the gross turnover and taxable turnover. The assessee then filed four returns for the period under assessment and also filed revised consolidated return, but the same was not furnished in time according to Rules. The assessee had concealed this amount of Rs. 24,302.50 apart from other transactions also in his turnover and had thus evaded the payment of tax. It was submitted by the authorised representative of the assessee before the Commercial Taxes Of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other charges" was realised by the assessee from the purchasers and the Board of Revenue has totally misunderstood the nature of the transaction. There was no question of referring the question of law before this Court in case the amount of "other charges" in question was realised by the assessee from his principal. It was submitted by Mr. Bapna that the nature of the transaction is clearly made out from the order of the Commercial Taxes Officer and the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and in any case if this Honourable Court is unable to decide the question of law on the facts stated by the Board of Revenue, then a further direction can be given by this Court under section 15(4) of the Act to send an additional statement of the case setting out the facts in a correct manner. Reliance in this regard is placed on Lakshmi Cotton Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bombay [1970] 26 STC 263 (SC) and Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Oil Mills Maithan, Agra [1971] 27 STC 121 (SC). We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties and have thoroughly perused the record. A perusal of the order of the Commercial Taxes Officer sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld be tantamount to a commission allowed to an agent and whether such commission should or should not form part of the sale price is, we feel, a question of law which should be referred to the Honourable High Court for authoritative pronouncement thereon. Accordingly we agree to make the following reference to the Honourable High Court: 'Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, "other charges" collected by the assessee for rendering unspecified services can be treated as commission, and whether such commission will not form part of sale price as defined in section 2(p) of Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954.'" The above observation also shows that the Board of Revenue has referred to the order of Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) in which it was clearly pointed out that the assessee was unable to specify the services for which he was collecting "other charges" from the parties to whom he was supplying goods. There was no question of making any reference at all by the Board of Revenue to this Court if the amount of Rs. 24,302.50 shown as "other charges" was the amount charged by the assessee from his principal and not from the purchasers. In this view of the matter, we d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
