Inspection charges outside sale price and flood-destroyed goods raising no question of law in revision

Inspection charges recovered from the purchaser were held not to form part of the sale price where the contract kept the goods' sale consideration unchanged and treated inspection as an incidental contractual burden borne ultimately by the purchaser, so the charges were not includible in taxable turnover. The note also records that where appellate authorities concurrently found as a fact that solvent cement and P.V.C. goods were destroyed in a flood and were not sold, no question of law arose in revision absent any legal infirmity. The revision therefore failed on both the valuation issue and the factual issue concerning the destroyed goods.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether inspection charges recovered from the purchaser formed part of the sale price and were includible in taxable turnover. (ii) Whether the concurrent finding that solvent cement and P.V.C. worth Rs. 65,975 were destroyed in the flood and not sold gave rise to any question of law.

Issue (i): Whether inspection charges recovered from the purchaser formed part of the sale price and were includible in taxable turnover.

Analysis: The contract provided that the goods would be inspected before despatch, that inspection charges would initially be deposited by the assessee-seller, and that such charges would thereafter be claimed from the purchaser through invoices. The charges were ultimately borne by the purchaser. The sale price of the goods remained unchanged before and after inspection, showing that the inspection charges were an incidental contractual burden and not part of the consideration for sale.

Conclusion: The inspection charges did not form part of the sale price and were not includible in taxable turnover.

Issue (ii): Whether the concurrent finding that solvent cement and P.V.C. worth Rs. 65,975 were destroyed in the flood and not sold gave rise to any question of law.

Analysis: Both the appellate authorities had concurrently found, on the facts, that the goods were destroyed or swept away in the flood and were not sold. The revision challenged only that factual conclusion without disclosing any legal error or infirmity warranting interference.

Conclusion: No question of law arose from the concurrent finding that the goods were destroyed in the flood and not sold.

Final Conclusion: The revision failed on both the valuation issue and the factual issue concerning the destroyed goods, and the order under challenge was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Amounts borne ultimately by the purchaser under the contract, though initially deposited by the seller, do not form part of sale price where they do not alter the consideration for the goods; concurrent findings of fact on destruction of goods do not raise a question of law absent legal infirmity.

---