Packing and delivery charges may form sale price; restricted purchases and packing timber can attract purchase tax.

Packing, delivery and allied charges were treated as part of sale price where the substance of the bargain showed contractual completion of sale included packing, loading, transport and delivery before goods reached the purchaser; those charges were therefore taxable. Form 19 purchases used for goods sent on consignment outside the State attracted purchase tax because the statutory purpose was not established and the purchases could not be directly identified. Timber bought for crates or boxes was also held outside the manufacture process, so purchase tax applied to that packing material. Penalties linked to the disputed assessments were reduced rather than deleted, giving the assessee only partial relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the packing charges shown in the white bills and the handling, loading, unloading, delivery and allied charges recovered through the yellow bills formed part of the sale price; (ii) whether purchase tax was payable on goods bought against Form 19 and used in manufacture of glass sent on consignment basis outside the State; (iii) whether purchase tax was payable on timber purchased against Form 19 and used for crates or boxes for packing glass; and (iv) whether the penalties imposed under sections 45(1) and 45(6) required interference.

Issue (i): whether the packing charges shown in the white bills and the handling, loading, unloading, delivery and allied charges recovered through the yellow bills formed part of the sale price.

Analysis: The definition of sale price covered the amount of valuable consideration for the sale and any sum charged for anything done by the dealer in respect of the goods at or before delivery, subject to the statutory exclusions. The decisive inquiry was whether the contract was, in substance, an ex-factory sale followed by separate services, or whether delivery at the purchaser's destination formed part of the bargain. The material showed that, except in a few isolated cases, the goods were not merely handed over at the factory but were packed, loaded, transported and delivered at destination under an implied arrangement, with the charges for those services often constituting a substantial part of the total bill. The packing in the sales department was also completed before the goods became ready for delivery ex-factory.

Conclusion: The packing charges in the white bills and the charges recovered through the yellow bills formed part of the sale price and were taxable.

Issue (ii): whether purchase tax was payable on goods bought against Form 19 and used in manufacture of glass sent on consignment basis outside the State.

Analysis: Form 19 purchases were restricted to authorised use in manufacture of goods for sale, and the assessing authority applied a proportionate method because the assessee did not maintain identification between the purchased goods and the goods sent on consignment. In the absence of direct identification, the method adopted to correlate consignment sales with total sales and to disallow the corresponding proportion of Form 19 purchases was treated as a reasonable basis for determining unauthorised use.

Conclusion: The levy of purchase tax on the Form 19 purchases used for goods consigned outside the State was upheld.

Issue (iii): whether purchase tax was payable on timber purchased against Form 19 and used for crates or boxes for packing glass.

Analysis: The process of manufacture was held to end when the manufactured article was ready, and packing was treated as a subsequent process rather than part of manufacture. Timber used for crates or boxes, therefore, could not be treated as raw material or consumable stores used in manufacture for the purpose of Form 19. The fragile nature of the goods did not alter the statutory character of the packing material.

Conclusion: The levy of purchase tax on the timber purchases was upheld.

Issue (iv): whether the penalties imposed under sections 45(1) and 45(6) required interference.

Analysis: The penalty under section 45(1) arose from the purchase tax demand on the Form 19 issue, where some scope for dispute existed, and the penalty under section 45(6) was linked to the enhanced tax demand arising from the disputed assessments. In view of the circumstances, the penalties warranted moderation rather than total deletion.

Conclusion: The penalty under section 45(1) was reduced and the penalty under section 45(6) was also reduced.

Final Conclusion: The assessment on the principal tax issues was sustained, but the penalties were substantially curtailed, resulting in only partial relief to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the substance of the bargain shows that packing, delivery and allied charges are incurred as part of the contractual completion of sale before delivery, such sums form part of sale price; conversely, goods purchased under a restricted declaration cannot be treated as duly used where the statutory purpose is not established.

---