2023 (7) TMI 629 - HC - VAT / Sales Tax

Mandi Shulk under Section 17(iii)(b) held part of sale price under Section 2(42) Uttarakhand VAT Act

HC held that Mandi Shulk/fees levied under Section 17(iii)(b) of the Adhiniyam is included in the 'sale price' under Section 2(42) of the Uttarakhand VAT ... Valuation - Inclusion of Mandi Fees/ Mandi Shulk into the Sale Price for calculation of VAT - Mandi Fees charged by the Mandi could be treated as a part of sale price under Section 2(42) of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act or not - Section 17(iii)(b) of the Adhiniyam - HELD THAT:- There can be no doubt that the Supreme Court in M/s Anand Swarup Mahesh Kumar [1980 (9) TMI 238 - SUPREME COURT] drew a distinction between the levy of tax/ duty, which the dealer/ seller can statutorily pass on to the purchaser, and the levy of tax/ duty, which the dealer or seller is not statutorily entitled to pass on to the purchaser (though he may pass it on to the purchaser), and concluded that the levy of tax which can statutorily be passed on to the purchaser, cannot form part of the ‘purchase price’, within the definition of that expression found in Section 2(gg) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. However, that is not the issue before us. The real issue is whether, the Mandi Shulk, which the dealer is entitled to statutorily recover from the purchaser, falls within the definition of expression ‘sale price’ contained in Section 2(42) of the Uttarakhand VAT Act, or not. The expression ‘sale price’ defined in Section 2(42) of the Uttarakhand VAT Act is a very widely defined expression, which means the amount of valuable consideration received or receivable by a dealer for sale of any goods, and shall include any sum charged for anything done by the dealer in respect of goods at the time or before the deliver thereof, excise duty, special excise duty or ‘any other duty or tax’. The expression ‘any other duty or tax’, is clearly broad enough to include the Mandi Shulk, which is nothing but a duty which the dealer is statutorily entitled to recover from the purchaser. Merely because it is statutorily recoverable by the dealer from the purchaser, it does not cease to be ‘any other duty’ within the meaning of ‘sale price’ defined in Section 2(42) of the Uttarakhand VAT Act. Thus, Mandi Shulk levied under Section 17(iii)(b) of the Adhiniyam would fall within the definition of the expression ‘sale price’, as defined in Section 2(42) of the Uttarakhand VAT Act, and would be treated as a part of sale price of the goods. The decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in M/s Ashok Kumar [2010 (9) TMI 1290 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT], lays down the correct position in law. The learned Single Judge, while deciding M/s Ashok Kumar [2010 (9) TMI 1290 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT] has appreciated the difference in the definitions of ‘purchase price’ and ‘sale price’ as defined in the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 and the Uttarakhand VAT Act respectively. There are no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment dated 30.10.2021, rendered by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Uttarakhand, Haldwani Bench - revision dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Whether Mandi Fees charged by the Mandi could be treated as a part of sale price under Section 2(42) of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act.2. Interpretation of the definition of 'sale price' under Section 2(42) of the Uttarakhand VAT Act in comparison to the U.P. Sales Tax Act.Summary:Issue 1: Mandi Fees as Part of Sale PriceThe primary issue for consideration is whether Mandi Fees charged by the Mandi can be treated as a part of the sale price under Section 2(42) of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act. The revisionist relied on a previous judgment by a Co-ordinate Bench, which concluded that the sale price shall not include Mandi Shulk collected by the Nigam and deposited with the funds of the Committee. However, the court in this case found no justification for this exclusion, noting that the definition of 'sale price' in Section 2(42) includes any other duty or tax, which would encompass Mandi Shulk.Issue 2: Interpretation of 'Sale Price'The revisionist cited the Supreme Court's judgment in M/s Anand Swarup Mahesh Kumar, which dealt with the U.P. Sales Tax Act and concluded that market fees could not be included in the turnover of purchases. However, the court noted that the definition of 'sale price' in the Uttarakhand VAT Act is broader, including any sum charged for anything done by the dealer in respect of goods at the time or before the delivery thereof, excise duty, special excise duty, or any other duty or tax.Comparison with U.P. Sales Tax Act:The court observed that the definition of 'purchase price' in Section 2(gg) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act is narrower compared to the definition of 'sale price' in Section 2(42) of the Uttarakhand VAT Act. The court emphasized that the expression 'any other duty or tax' in the Uttarakhand VAT Act is broad enough to include Mandi Shulk. The court held that the decision of the Division Bench in CTR No.23 of 2013, which excluded Mandi Shulk from the sale price, was incorrect and overruled it, affirming the Single Judge's decision in M/s Ashok Kumar.Conclusion:The court concluded that Mandi Shulk levied under Section 17(iii)(b) of the Adhiniyam falls within the definition of 'sale price' under Section 2(42) of the Uttarakhand VAT Act and should be treated as part of the sale price of goods. Consequently, the court upheld the impugned judgment of the Commercial Tax Tribunal and dismissed the revisions.