Transport charges and dealer liability under sales tax law upheld where freight was not separately charged and tax recovery from buyer failed.

Transport charges formed part of taxable turnover under the sales tax law because amounts received in respect of a sale are included in sale price unless freight or delivery cost is separately charged; the factual finding that the charges were not separately charged meant they were rightly taxed. The dealer also remained liable for sales tax despite delayed registration and inability to recover the tax from the purchaser, because the charging provisions fasten liability on the dealer and the restriction on realisation by an unregistered dealer is only regulatory, not a condition precedent to tax liability. The assessment was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether transport charges formed part of the petitioner's taxable turnover under the sales tax law. (ii) Whether the petitioner could avoid liability to pay sales tax on the ground that he was not registered in time and therefore could not recover the tax from the purchaser.

Issue (i): Whether transport charges formed part of the petitioner's taxable turnover under the sales tax law.

Analysis: The statutory definitions of "turnover" and "sale price" treat as taxable all amounts received or receivable in respect of a sale, subject to the stated deductions. Freight or delivery cost is excluded only when separately charged. If transport charges are not separately charged, they become part of the sale price and are includible in taxable turnover. The finding that the transport charges were not separately charged was treated as a factual basis not open to challenge in the writ proceedings.

Conclusion: The transport charges were rightly included in the taxable turnover, against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner could avoid liability to pay sales tax on the ground that he was not registered in time and therefore could not recover the tax from the purchaser.

Analysis: The charging provision fastens liability on the dealer, not on the consumer. The provisions governing returns, payment, default recovery, and penalty show that the dealer is the person liable to pay the tax. The clause restricting realisation of tax by an unregistered dealer is only an enabling and regulatory provision; it does not shift the burden of tax or make recovery from the purchaser a condition of liability. The inability to pass on the tax to the buyer therefore does not extinguish the dealer's statutory obligation.

Conclusion: The petitioner remained liable for the sales tax notwithstanding the delay in registration and inability to recover it from the consumer, against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The petition failed on both substantive grounds and the assessment was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the sales tax law, transport charges are part of sale price and taxable turnover unless separately charged, and the dealer's liability to pay tax is independent of any ability to recover it from the purchaser.

---