Purchase tax on empty bottles used to market liquor upheld, while cash discount remained excluded from turnover.

Empty bottles bought from unregistered dealers and used as an integral step in making liquor marketable attracted purchase tax under Section 7-A because such use fell within "used otherwise," even though the finished packed goods were also taxed on sale. Departmental clarifications could not displace the statutory liability once the provision had been judicially construed, so they did not bar the levy. Cash discount allowed on sales was excluded from turnover under the relevant turnover definition and was not includible.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether purchase tax was leviable under Section 7-A on the purchase turnover of empty bottles bought from unregistered dealers for use in bottling Beer and IMFL; (ii) whether the departmental clarifications issued on 09.11.1989 and 27.12.2000 bound the revenue so as to deny purchase tax for the relevant assessment year; and (iii) whether cash discount allowed to TASMAC was includible in turnover.

Issue (i): Whether purchase tax was leviable under Section 7-A on the purchase turnover of empty bottles bought from unregistered dealers for use in bottling Beer and IMFL.

Analysis: Section 7-A, as applicable to the period in question, fastened purchase tax where goods liable to tax were purchased without tax and were either consumed or used in the manufacture of other goods for sale or otherwise, disposed of otherwise than by sale in the State, or despatched outside the State. The bottles were not consumed in manufacture, because brewing or distillation was complete before bottling, and they retained their identity as bottles. They were also not consumed otherwise. However, the bottles were used in the business activity as an integral and necessary step for putting the manufactured liquor into marketable form and effecting sale. The expression "used otherwise" covered such use. The fact that tax was also levied on sale of the packed goods did not exclude the purchase turnover from Section 7-A.

Conclusion: Purchase tax was leviable on the empty bottles, in favour of Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the departmental clarifications issued on 09.11.1989 and 27.12.2000 bound the revenue so as to deny purchase tax for the relevant assessment year.

Analysis: Departmental circulars are binding on departmental authorities only so long as they are consistent with the statute and the law declared by the Courts. The clarifications relied on by the assessee reflected the department's understanding, but they could not prevail against the correct construction of Section 7-A as declared by binding judicial decisions. Once the provision was interpreted judicially, the circulars could not be enforced to defeat the statutory liability.

Conclusion: The clarifications did not prevent levy of purchase tax, in favour of Revenue.

Issue (iii): Whether cash discount allowed to TASMAC was includible in turnover.

Analysis: Explanation 2(iii) to Section 2(r) expressly excludes cash or other discount on the price allowed in respect of any sale from turnover. On the facts found, the amount allowed as cash discount fell within that exclusion.

Conclusion: Cash discount was not includible in turnover, in favour of Assessee.

Final Conclusion: The levy of purchase tax on empty bottles and the rejection of the circular-based defence were upheld, while the exclusion of cash discount from turnover was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where purchased goods are used as an integral part of the business process for making taxable goods marketable and effecting sale, such use can fall within "used otherwise" under Section 7-A; departmental circulars cannot override the statute as construed by binding judicial precedent.

---