Tax disguised as handling charges attracted penalty, with concurrent factual findings defeating revisional interference and remand.

Amounts described as handling charges were held, on concurrent factual findings, to be collections by way of tax or purporting to be by way of tax, attracting penalty under section 22(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The assessee failed to show that genuine handling charges were collected or that material evidence, including alleged first-sale bills, had been ignored by the lower authorities. As the Tribunal's finding was supported by the records and no error of law was demonstrated in revision, revisional interference was unwarranted and remand was refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee's collections described as handling charges were in substance collections by way of tax or purporting to be by way of tax so as to attract penalty under section 22(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, and whether the Tribunal's finding suffered from non-consideration of material evidence warranting remand.

Analysis: The collection could escape penalty only if it was genuinely by way of handling charges. The authorities below, including the Tribunal, found on facts that the so-called handling charges were not genuine and were aligned with the tax incidence on the relevant goods. The assessee failed to establish that the alleged first-sale bills showing similar charges had in fact been produced before the lower authorities, and the records did not support the claim that material evidence had been ignored. The Tribunal's reasoning also showed that the charges varied according to the type of commodity and corresponded closely to the tax payable, supporting the inference that the assessee had recovered tax in the guise of handling charges. In revision, no error of law was shown in the Tribunal's factual conclusions, and remand was not justified.

Conclusion: The penalty under section 22(2) was rightly sustained; the collections were treated as tax or purported tax and not as handling charges, and the request for remand was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where concurrent factual findings show that amounts described as handling charges were really collected in the guise of tax, and no material evidence is shown to have been ignored, revisional interference is unwarranted.

---