Refundable container deposits are not sale price where bottles and crates are retained for return and reuse.

Refundable deposits on beer bottles and crates were not treated as sale consideration where the contract and conduct showed a continuing arrangement for return and reuse. Applying section 19 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, the SC found that property in the containers did not pass as part of an out-and-out sale because the supplier charged separate refundable deposits, facilitated return of empties, and issued credit notes on return. Any forfeiture for non-return was treated as liquidated damages under section 74 of the Contract Act, 1872, not as conversion of the deposit into sale price. The bottles and crates were therefore outside the taxable sale price.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refundable amounts collected on bottles and crates supplied with beer formed part of the sale price so as to be exigible to sales tax, or whether the transaction showed that the bottles and crates were retained by the supplier and only a refundable deposit was taken to ensure their return.

Analysis: The governing principle under section 19 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 is that property in goods passes at the time intended by the parties, having regard to the contract, conduct, and surrounding circumstances. On the facts, the supplier charged a separate refundable deposit on bottles and crates, instructed customers to collect a similar deposit from consumers, arranged return of empties through its trucks, and issued credit notes on return. These features showed a continuing scheme of reuse rather than an out-and-out sale of the containers. The deposit was taken only to secure return of the bottles and crates; any forfeiture on non-return was in the nature of liquidated damages under section 74 of the Contract Act, 1872, and did not convert the deposit into sale consideration. The principle of automatic passing of property on a sale-or-return analogy was inapplicable, and section 11 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 also supported the view that time was not made of the essence for return of the containers.

Conclusion: The bottles and crates were not sold along with the beer, and the refundable deposits did not form part of the sale price.

Ratio Decidendi: In a transaction involving goods supplied in returnable containers, taxability depends on the parties' intention as manifested by the contract and conduct; where the containers are supplied against refundable deposits solely to secure their return, the deposits are not sale consideration but security amounts, and forfeiture for non-return does not by itself establish a sale.

---