Sale price and commodity classification: separately charged V.P.P. amounts are excluded, and Tinopal falls under the residuary entry.

Tinopal was treated as comparable to ultramarine blue for classification under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, and was held outside entry 25 in Part II of Schedule II; it therefore fell only under the residuary entry in Part VI. Separately shown V.P.P. charges were not part of the sale price under section 2(O) because the bills disclosed the goods price and postal charges as distinct items, so those charges were excluded from taxable turnover. The stated effect was consequential relief to the assessee through reduction of the assessment.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Tinopal fell within entry 25 in Part II of Schedule II to the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 or was taxable only under the residuary entry in Part VI of the Schedule. (ii) Whether V.P.P. charges separately shown in the bills formed part of the sale price under section 2(O) and were includible in the taxable turnover.

Issue (i): Whether Tinopal fell within entry 25 in Part II of Schedule II to the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 or was taxable only under the residuary entry in Part VI of the Schedule.

Analysis: The classification of Tinopal was tested against the relevant schedule entry. The material treated Tinopal as comparable to ultramarine blue, and the prior High Court decision on that commodity was applied as the governing basis for classification.

Conclusion: Tinopal was not covered by entry 25 in Part II of Schedule II and was liable only under the residuary entry; the assessee was entitled to consequential relief.

Issue (ii): Whether V.P.P. charges separately shown in the bills formed part of the sale price under section 2(O) and were includible in the taxable turnover.

Analysis: The bills showed the price of the goods separately and the V.P.P. charges as an additional item. On the applicable definition of sale price, only amounts forming part of the price for the goods, and not separately charged postal charges, could be included in turnover. The reasoning followed the settled test that a separately agreed and separately charged amount does not become part of the sale price merely because it is recovered along with the invoice amount.

Conclusion: V.P.P. charges were not part of the sale price and were wrongly included in the taxable turnover; the assessee was entitled to consequential relief.

Final Conclusion: The assessments were reduced by excluding the disputed commodity from the higher entry and by deleting the separately charged V.P.P. amounts from turnover, resulting in relief to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Amounts separately charged in connection with delivery or forwarding are not part of sale price when they are not integrated into the agreed price of the goods, and a commodity must be taxed only under the schedule entry that properly covers it, failing which the residuary entry applies.

---