Sale price includes surcharge and writ relief is premature where an effective statutory revision remedy exists.

Under the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993, a surcharge collected by a dealer from purchasers before delivery was treated as part of the sale price because the statutory definition of sale price was wide enough to include sums received or receivable as valuable consideration, and the surcharge did not fall within any exclusion. It was therefore includible in taxable turnover and taxable when the resale price exceeded the prescribed margin. On maintainability, the High Court held that the writ petition was premature because section 36 provided an efficacious revisional remedy and the impugned notice was only an opportunity to explain non-compliance, not a penalty order.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the surcharge collected by the dealer for remittance to the oil pool account formed part of the sale price and was liable to be included in the taxable turnover under the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993; (ii) Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the statutory remedy of revision and the notice impugned before the Court.

Issue (i): Whether the surcharge collected by the dealer for remittance to the oil pool account formed part of the sale price and was liable to be included in the taxable turnover under the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993.

Analysis: The definition of sale price under section 2(34) of the Act was held to be wide enough to include the amount received or receivable by the dealer as valuable consideration, including any sum charged, except the specific exclusions stated in the provision. Surcharge was not covered by those exclusions. The Court further held that, in the absence of any statutory provision authorising exclusion of the surcharge, the amount collected from buyers before delivery had to be included in the sale price. Once included, the resale price exceeding the prescribed margin attracted tax under section 8(1)(a) and rule 12.

Conclusion: The surcharge was liable to be treated as part of the sale price and was taxable.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the statutory remedy of revision and the notice impugned before the Court.

Analysis: The Act provided an efficacious revisional remedy under section 36, and the petitioner had also been called upon to comply with the statutory requirements before penal action was considered. The Court held that the notice was only an opportunity to explain non-compliance and did not itself impose penalty. In these circumstances, the statutory remedy was adequate and the writ petition was held to be premature.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable at that stage and was premature.

Final Conclusion: The challenge failed both on merits and on maintainability, and the assessing authority was left free to proceed in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of a statutory exclusion, any sum charged by a dealer from the purchaser before delivery forms part of the sale price, and where an efficacious statutory revision remedy exists, writ jurisdiction should not be invoked prematurely.

---