TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 660X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f cess was not intended to form part of the consideration for the purchase of sugar by the assessee therein. The said principle could very well be applied to the case on hand, since the petitioner had paid the fee or cess to the regulated market committee which renders certain services to the seller and the purchaser. In other words, the market committee acts as a facilitator for which a fee is collected - fee/cess paid by the petitioner to the market committee cannot form part of the taxable turn over nor made liable to tax - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. - W.P.No.29647 of 2004 and W.M.P.No.36013 of 2004 - - - Dated:- 31-8-2016 - Mr. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM For the Petitioner : Mr.V.S.Sivasundaram For th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deducted from the total turn over. 4.While so, the petitioner has received pre-revision notices for the assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99. In the said notices, the respondent had stated that the petitioner have paid cess to the regulated market committee for the purchase of ground seeds and such payment of cess would form part of the purchase turn over liable to tax under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. 5.The petitioner submitted their objections stating that the sale cannot form part of the purchase turn over as it will not fall within the definition of the taxable turn over as defined under Section 2(p) of the TNGST Act. It is further contended that the market fee or cess being only expenses for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s further submitted that in the case of 'rubber cess' it has been paid by the producer. 3.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent seek time to get instructions in the matter. List the matter on 20.07.2016. Thus, the contention of the petitioner is that the legal issue raised in this writ petition is covered by the decision referred above. 6.In the case of Guranditta Mal Shauti Parkash Rice Mills v. State of Punjab and Another reported in Vol 91 STC Page 398, the Hon'ble Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court was considering an identical case where the petitioners were registered dealers under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 and licensees under the Punjab Agricultural Produ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arket fee could not be part of the sale consideration. The petitioners thus were not required to show in their turnover the amount of the market fee as part of the purchase price of such of the agricultural produce purchased by them locally. Such market fee could not form part of the turnover for assessment or payment of purchase tax. In cases where the petitioners purchased produce in areas where they were not registered as licensees also, since the legal liability to pay market fee is on the buyer and if such a buyer is not a licensee of that market area, it is the duty of the seller to deposit the market fee on behalf of the buyer and then to realise it from the buyer, it is not the legal obligation of the seller to pay market fee on suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
