Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether forfeiture of the security deposit in the facts of the case constituted taxable turnover as sale consideration under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, or whether the transaction was only a loan arrangement with forfeiture operating as liquidated damages.
Analysis: The applicable definition of sale under section 2(xxi) requires a transfer of property in goods for valuable consideration in the course of trade or business. The record did not disclose any agreement or other material showing that the amounts retained were sale consideration. The surrounding correspondence and conduct indicated that the goods had been supplied against a deposit and that the later appropriation of the deposit arose only upon the failure to return the materials. On the facts, forfeiture of the security deposit was treated as damages arising from the arrangement and not as the price of a completed sale. The earlier reduction made by the Tribunal also supported the conclusion that the price, if any, was fixed in the earlier year and not in the relevant assessment year.
Conclusion: The transaction was a loan transaction and the forfeited security deposit did not form part of taxable turnover; there was no sale in the relevant year.