Limitation and taxable turnover rules: delivery and collection charges formed part of sale consideration despite separate invoicing.

Suo motu revision was treated as timely because the period spent while the earlier High Court view was under consideration before the Supreme Court was excluded in computing limitation, so the revision under section 34 was within time. Collection and delivery charges separately shown in invoices were held includible in taxable turnover because rule 6(c) permits deduction only when freight or delivery charges are genuinely outside the price of the goods; where contract terms showed delivery of gas cylinders and return collection of empties formed part of the bargain, separate invoicing did not change the true character of the consideration. The assessment on those charges was therefore sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the suo motu revision was barred by limitation; (ii) Whether collection and delivery charges shown separately in the invoices were includible in the taxable turnover.

Issue (i): Whether the suo motu revision was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The challenge to limitation failed because the period during which the validity of the earlier High Court view was under consideration before the Supreme Court was excluded while computing time. On that basis, the revision initiated under section 34 was held to be within time.

Conclusion: The suo motu revision was not barred by limitation.

Issue (ii): Whether collection and delivery charges shown separately in the invoices were includible in the taxable turnover.

Analysis: Under rule 6(c), freight and delivery charges are deductible only when they are separately charged and are not included in the price of the goods sold. The contract terms and billing conditions showed that the gas cylinders were to be delivered to customers in secured cylinders, the empty cylinders were to be collected back, and the charges were combined charges for delivery and return collection within the standard delivery zone. Mere separate disclosure in the invoices did not alter the true character of the consideration. The charges were therefore part of the sale price and not deductible.

Conclusion: The collection and delivery charges were rightly included in the taxable turnover.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed, and the order sustaining assessment of the collection and delivery charges was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Charges incurred as part of the bargain for delivery of goods and return collection of containers form part of the sale consideration and are deductible only when they are truly outside the price of the goods and not merely split up in the invoice.

---