TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court sets aside authorities' orders, remits matter for reconsideration. Opportunity granted for evidence.</h1> <h3>Premier Breweries Ltd. Versus State of Karnataka</h3> The Court allowed the petition, setting aside the orders of the authorities and remitting the matter to the assessing authority for reconsideration in ... - Issues involved: The issues involved in this case are the rejection of claim for exemption of packing and forwarding charges u/r 6(4)(f) and (ff) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules, 1957, and the disagreement between the authorities and the petitioner regarding the nature of these charges.Summary:Rejection of Claim for Exemption: The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, claimed exemption of packing and forwarding charges at the rate of Rs. 4 per crate for the assessment period from 1st January, 1977. The assessing authority rejected this claim stating that the charges were incurred prior to the sales effected. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes also did not grant any relief to the petitioner, emphasizing that there was no packing involved at the time of sales of liquor bottles. The Tribunal agreed with the assessing authority, mentioning that the charges were intended to cover expenses involved in pre-sale activities, such as sealing and signing bottles as per the requirements of the Karnataka Excise Rules. The Tribunal concluded that these charges increased the cost of liquor sold, leading to the rejection of the exemption claim.Nature of Activities and Sale: The petitioner, a brewery business without a manufacturing unit in Karnataka, received stock from Kerala and sold it at a sales depot in Bangalore. The stock was unloaded, repacked, and sealed before delivery to customers. The authorities rejected the claim for deduction of packing and forwarding charges due to the absence of fresh packing at the sales depot and the uniformity of freight charges without considering actual handling or forwarding charges to each customer.Legal Interpretation: The Supreme Court's interpretations in similar cases clarified that charges incurred before sale and included in the price of goods are not eligible for deduction. Freight and handling charges that become part of the sale price are not excluded under the relevant rules. The application of rule 6(4)(f) and (ff) depends on whether charges are incurred as incidents of sale or after the sale, highlighting the importance of the specific circumstances of each case.Decision: The Court allowed the petition, setting aside the orders of the authorities and remitting the matter to the assessing authority for reconsideration in line with the observations and the law. The petitioner was granted an opportunity to produce evidence, if any, and the parties were directed to appear before the assessing authority for further orders on a specified date.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
