Turnover under trade tax includes non-refundable customer security recoveries, but excludes separately charged insurance at buyer's request.

Amounts recovered from customers as "security" formed part of turnover under the U.P. Trade Tax Act because the statutory definition is wide, the sums were collected in the bills at 2% to 4%, and there was no evidence that they were refundable or ever returned. The separately charged insurance amount did not form part of turnover because it was collected independently, the goods were insured at customers' request, and it was not part of the sale consideration or the aggregate amount for which the goods were sold. The revenue succeeded on the security amount, while the assessee succeeded on the insurance charge.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the amount recovered as security from customers formed part of the dealer's turnover under the U.P. Trade Tax Act. (ii) Whether the separately charged insurance amount formed part of the dealer's turnover under the U.P. Trade Tax Act.

Issue (i): Whether the amount recovered as security from customers formed part of the dealer's turnover under the U.P. Trade Tax Act.

Analysis: Section 2(i) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act defines turnover in wide terms as the aggregate amount for which goods are sold or supplied, including amounts received as other valuable consideration. The amount described in the bills as security was recovered at the rate of two per cent to four per cent and was never shown to have been returned to customers. The record also did not show any demand for refund by purchasers. In these circumstances, the amount was treated as part of the sale consideration and not as an independent refundable deposit.

Conclusion: The security amount formed part of turnover and the contrary view was not sustainable. The issue is decided in favour of Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the separately charged insurance amount formed part of the dealer's turnover under the U.P. Trade Tax Act.

Analysis: The insurance charge was found to have been collected separately and the goods were insured at the request of customers. On those facts, the amount did not represent part of the sale consideration or the aggregate amount for which the goods were sold within section 2(i) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act.

Conclusion: The insurance charge did not form part of turnover. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded only to the extent that the security amount was held taxable as turnover, while the exclusion of the insurance charge from turnover was maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: Amounts recovered from customers as part of the sale transaction and not shown to be refundable form part of turnover under the statutory definition, whereas a separately recovered insurance charge paid at the customer's request does not.

---