Purchase tax on used bottles, binding tax clarifications, and cash discount excluded from turnover under amended sales tax law

The amended purchase-tax provision, which extends to goods "used" in manufacture or sale, brought empty bottles bought from unregistered dealers for bottling beer and IMFL within the charging net because they were used in producing and selling the finished liquor. Earlier favourable departmental clarifications remained binding on the Revenue until validly withdrawn prospectively, so a later contrary clarification could not defeat the assessee for the relevant year. Cash discount allowed on sales was excluded from turnover because it did not form part of the actual sale consideration.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the purchase turnover of empty bottles purchased from unregistered dealers for bottling beer and IMFL was liable to purchase tax under section 7-A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act; (ii) whether the assessing authority could ignore the earlier favourable clarifications in view of section 28-A of the Act; and (iii) whether cash discount allowed to TASMAC was includible in turnover under section 2(r) of the Act.

Issue (i): Whether the purchase turnover of empty bottles purchased from unregistered dealers for bottling beer and IMFL was liable to purchase tax under section 7-A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act.

Analysis: The provision, as amended by insertion of the words "or uses", widened the net of purchase tax beyond mere consumption in manufacture. The bottles purchased from unregistered dealers were used in the manufacture and sale of the finished liquor products and were not sold as independent goods. The earlier decisions rendered under the unamended provision did not govern the amended text. The object of the section to prevent leakage and tax evasion supported the levy.

Conclusion: The purchase turnover of empty bottles was liable to purchase tax under section 7-A of the Act.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessing authority could ignore the earlier favourable clarifications in view of section 28-A of the Act.

Analysis: The earlier clarifications in favour of the assessee bound the Revenue, and any withdrawal or modification of that position could operate only prospectively. The later clarification could not deprive the assessee of the benefit of the existing clarifications for the assessment year in question. The Revenue could not rely on the later clarification to defeat the earlier binding instructions.

Conclusion: The levy of purchase tax for the relevant assessment year could not stand against the assessee in view of the binding earlier clarifications.

Issue (iii): Whether cash discount allowed to TASMAC was includible in turnover under section 2(r) of the Act.

Analysis: Under the definition of turnover, cash or other discount allowed on the price of goods sold is excluded from the taxable turnover. The amount deducted as cash discount did not form part of the sale consideration actually receivable for the goods sold.

Conclusion: The cash discount was not taxable and could not be included in turnover.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded in part. The court upheld the levy principle on empty bottles under the amended purchase tax provision, but set aside the impugned levy for the relevant year because the assessee was entitled to the benefit of the existing clarifications, and it also excluded cash discount from turnover.

Ratio Decidendi: After the amendment inserting "or uses" into the purchase-tax provision, goods used in the manufacture or sale of other goods can fall within the charging provision, but departmental clarifications binding on the Revenue must be given effect to until validly withdrawn prospectively, and cash or other discounts allowed on sale price are excluded from turnover.

---