Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether purchasers of Indian liquor were legally responsible for payment of excise duty or countervailing duty before removal of the liquor from the distillery or bonded warehouse. (ii) Whether excise duty or countervailing duty paid directly by purchasers to the excise authorities formed part of the manufacturer's or warehouse owner's taxable turnover under the sales tax law.
Issue (i): Whether purchasers of Indian liquor were legally responsible for payment of excise duty or countervailing duty before removal of the liquor from the distillery or bonded warehouse.
Analysis: The relevant excise and storage rules required payment of duty before a distillery pass or warehouse release could be obtained. The regulatory scheme showed that the intending purchaser, not merely the manufacturer or warehouse licensee, was also made responsible for making the necessary payment to the excise authorities before removal of the liquor.
Conclusion: Yes. The purchasers were also legally responsible for payment of the excise duty, and the rules similarly permitted payment of countervailing duty by the intending buyer before removal from the bonded warehouse.
Issue (ii): Whether excise duty or countervailing duty paid directly by purchasers to the excise authorities formed part of the manufacturer's or warehouse owner's taxable turnover under the sales tax law.
Analysis: Turnover under the sales tax law meant the amount set out in the bill of sale as consideration for the sale, together with sums charged by the dealer. The duties in question were not charged or received by the dealers, were not included in the bills of sale, and did not go into the dealers' common till or circulating capital. Applying strict construction of the taxing provision, amounts paid directly by purchasers to the State could not be treated as sums charged by the dealer.
Conclusion: No. Excise duty and countervailing duty paid directly by the buyers did not form part of the appellants' taxable turnover.
Final Conclusion: The assessments could not include the duties paid directly by purchasers, and the impugned judgments and notices were set aside, with the appeals being allowed.
Ratio Decidendi: For turnover under a taxing statute, only amounts charged or received by the dealer as part of the sale consideration can be included; duties paid directly by purchasers to the State authorities, without passing through the dealer's accounts or consideration, do not form part of taxable turnover.