Section 43B and liquor issue price: excise collection is not tax or duty when it forms part of contract consideration.

Section 43B applied only to sums payable by way of tax or duty, so an issue price paid to the Excise Department for the privilege of vending liquor was not disallowable merely because it was collected by the Department; the liability remained deductible under mercantile accounting despite a stay on recovery. Where trading results were not fully verifiable and turnover was substantial, a modest addition to trading income was considered justified and sustained. In business of country liquor contracting, raid expenses were treated as a matter of reasonable estimate, and reduction of the disallowance was upheld because the estimate was not shown to be erroneous.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the amount described as issue price payable to the Excise Department was deductible or disallowable under section 43B; (ii) whether the addition of Rs. 25,000 to trading results was justified; (iii) whether the reduction of disallowance out of raid expenses from Rs. 64,000 to Rs. 10,000 was justified.

Issue (i): Whether the amount described as issue price payable to the Excise Department was deductible or disallowable under section 43B.

Analysis: For the relevant assessment year, section 43B applied only to sums payable by way of tax or duty. The issue price, as defined in the U.P. Excise Rules, was the price payable for the minimum guaranteed quantity of country liquor and formed part of the consideration for the privilege of vending liquor. It was neither excise duty nor tax merely because it was payable to the Excise Department. The existence of a stay against recovery did not extinguish the liability under the mercantile system of accounting.

Conclusion: The disallowance of Rs. 2,39,527 was not sustainable and had to be deleted; this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the addition of Rs. 25,000 to trading results was justified.

Analysis: The sales turnover was substantial and the trading results were not fully verifiable. In such circumstances, a modest estimate was warranted and the addition made by the first appellate authority did not call for interference.

Conclusion: The addition of Rs. 25,000 was upheld; this issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the reduction of disallowance out of raid expenses from Rs. 64,000 to Rs. 10,000 was justified.

Analysis: In the business of country liquor contracting, such expenditure was ordinarily incurred to prevent illegal sales and to assist enforcement action. The allowance was a matter of reasonable estimate, and the estimate adopted by the first appellate authority could not be said to be erroneous.

Conclusion: The reduction of the disallowance was upheld and the Revenue's objection failed; this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on the core disallowance under section 43B, while the trading addition was sustained and the Revenue's challenge to raid expenses failed; the assessee's appeal was partly allowed and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: For the relevant year, section 43B could be invoked only for tax or duty, and a statutory payment that is in substance part of the liquor contractor's price for the privilege of vending liquor is not tax or duty merely because it is collected by the Excise Department.

---