Excise duty in turnover under Central Sales Tax was includible, and State deduction rules did not apply through section 9(3).

Under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, excise duty separately recovered from buyers was treated as part of the sale price and therefore formed part of the assessable turnover, as no statutory exclusion applied. Section 9(3) did not import State rules governing substantive computation of turnover; it applied only the State machinery for assessment, collection and enforcement of central sales tax. Rule 7(1) of the General Sales Tax Rules, 1950 was therefore not available to deduct excise duty from turnover. The revision petition failed, and the disputed duty remained includible in turnover.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether excise duty separately collected from buyers formed part of the assessable turnover under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. (ii) Whether rule 7(1) of the General Sales Tax Rules, 1950 was attracted through section 9(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 so as to allow deduction of excise duty from the turnover.

Issue (i): Whether excise duty separately collected from buyers formed part of the assessable turnover under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Analysis: The definitions of "turnover" and "sale price" under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 require the aggregate of sale prices received or receivable in respect of inter-State sales. The amount recovered as excise duty from customers was treated as part of the consideration for the sale and was not shown to fall within any statutory exclusion from the sale price.

Conclusion: The excise duty formed part of the assessable turnover, and the issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether rule 7(1) of the General Sales Tax Rules, 1950 was attracted through section 9(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 so as to allow deduction of excise duty from the turnover.

Analysis: Section 9(3) makes the State machinery applicable for assessment, collection and enforcement of Central sales tax, but it does not import State provisions governing determination of turnover. The phrase "in the same manner" was read as referring to procedure and not to substantive rules altering the computation of turnover under the Central Act.

Conclusion: Rule 7(1) was not attracted for deduction of excise duty, and the issue was decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The revision petition failed because the disputed excise duty was includible in turnover and no deduction could be claimed under the State rule through section 9(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, turnover and sale price must be computed under the Central Act itself, and section 9(3) does not assimilate State provisions that govern substantive determination of turnover; it imports only the assessment procedure.

---