Subsidy to cane growers treated as part of sugarcane purchase price and included in turnover

A subsidy paid by a sugar mill to cane growers for early planting was treated as part of the purchase price of sugarcane because it was voluntarily paid to secure early and regular supply, was retained by the growers, and was over and above the statutory cane price. The commercial arrangement showed an implicit agreement that the payment formed part of the consideration for the cane supplied, so its accounting description as a development expense did not change its character. The subsidy was therefore includible in purchase turnover.

---

---

Issues: Whether the subsidy paid by a sugar mill to cane growers for early planting formed part of the purchase price of sugarcane and was therefore includible in the purchase turnover.

Analysis: The payment was made voluntarily to secure early and regular supply of sugarcane, was retained by the cane growers, and was over and above the statutory price fixed for sugarcane. The payment had a direct nexus with the supply of sugarcane and could not be treated as an independent development expense merely because it was described in the accounts in that manner. The surrounding commercial arrangement showed an implicit agreement that the subsidy was part of the price payable for the cane supplied.

Conclusion: The subsidy formed part of the purchase price of sugarcane and was rightly included in the purchase turnover.

---