Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the security amount taken for returnable gas cylinders, when forfeited on non-return of the cylinders, constituted sale consideration and was liable to tax.
Analysis: The security voucher expressly made the cylinders returnable and provided for forfeiture on failure to return them, showing that the amount was taken to secure return and not as consideration for transfer of property in the cylinders. The transaction was one of bailment, and the forfeited amount represented damages for non-return rather than price. The statutory definitions of sale, sale price and turnover under the Central Sales Tax Act required a transfer of property for valuable consideration, which was absent on these facts. The principle applied in the governing precedent on returnable containers supported the conclusion that, where there is no intention to sell the containers and the deposit is merely a safeguard, forfeiture of the deposit does not become sale price.
Conclusion: The forfeited security amount was not sale consideration and was not liable to tax.
Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded and the tax levy on the forfeited cylinder security was unsustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: A deposit taken for returnable containers, where the terms clearly establish returnability and no intention to sell the containers exists, is part of a bailment arrangement and any forfeiture for non-return is damages, not sale price.