Freight under statutory pricing schemes may enter turnover only if reimbursable up to the buyer's destination.

Freight charged separately for moving cement from the depot to the buyer's destination was treated as part of turnover only if the controlling price order showed that reimbursable freight extended beyond the factory-to-depot leg; because the Tribunal had not examined the first appellate findings on that factual basis, the turnover issue was remitted for fresh decision. Interest under section 8(1) could not be levied on tax attributable to freight that was genuinely disputed and never admitted by the dealer; such liability, if ultimately found payable, would fall under the provision governing unpaid assessed tax, so the deletion of that interest was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether freight charged separately for transportation of cement from the depot to the customer's destination formed part of the turnover under the controlling price order and the Trade Tax Act. (ii) Whether interest under section 8(1) could be levied on tax attributable to disputed freight charges as if it were admitted tax.

Issue (i): Whether freight charged separately for transportation of cement from the depot to the customer's destination formed part of the turnover under the controlling price order and the Trade Tax Act.

Analysis: The controlling price order governing cement sales had overriding force and the earlier appellate findings had to be examined on the basis of the actual reimbursement structure under that order. The decisive question was whether the freight reimbursement covered only movement from factory to depot, or also the further movement from depot to the customer's destination. If the statutory scheme contemplated reimbursement up to the customer's destination, the freight component charged from buyers would enter the sale price and turnover; if reimbursement ended at the depot, the subsequent transportation charge would not. The Tribunal had not dealt with the first appellate authority's findings on this aspect and proceeded on an incorrect factual premise that the sales were by a stockist rather than by the manufacturer.

Conclusion: The issue was remitted to the Tribunal for fresh decision; the revision was allowed and the Tribunal's order was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether interest under section 8(1) could be levied on tax attributable to disputed freight charges as if it were admitted tax.

Analysis: The liability to include freight in turnover had never been admitted by the dealer and remained a contested question. Tax on such disputed freight could not be treated as admitted tax for the purpose of section 8(1). If the freight amount was ultimately held taxable, the consequence would lie under the provision applicable to unpaid assessed tax, not on the footing of admitted liability.

Conclusion: Interest under section 8(1) was not payable on the disputed freight component; the deletion of that interest was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The revision concerning freight turnover succeeded to the extent of remand for reconsideration, while the revision concerning interest failed and the exclusion of interest was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Freight charged under a statutory cement pricing scheme forms part of turnover only if the scheme shows that the producer's reimbursable freight extends to the buyer's destination, and interest as on admitted tax cannot be levied on a genuinely disputed tax liability.

---