Tribunal grants appellant sales return deduction, reduces liability under sales tax law

TVL. Suhrid Geigy Limited. Versus The State Of Tamil Nadu.

TVL. Suhrid Geigy Limited. Versus The State Of Tamil Nadu. - TTJ 001, 030, Issues:
Appeal under s. 36(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 disputing liability on a turnover. Dispute regarding the nature of claimed deduction as sales return or unfructified sales.

Analysis:
The appellant, a public limited company dealing in medicines, dyes, and chemicals, contested the liability on a turnover of Rs. 76,115.80 for the assessment year 1972-73 under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The assessing authority disallowed the claim, stating it related to unfructified sales and could only be excluded from the turnover of the year of such sales. The appellant argued that the claim was made within the time for sales return, but the authorities contended it was unfructified sales due to non-delivery of goods to purchasers. The appellant maintained that the sales were completed as evidenced by invoices, delivery to carriers, and inclusion in monthly returns. The authorities relied on the concept of unfructified sales, but the Tribunal found that the claim should have been allowed as a sales return within the meaning of the law and accounts. The appellant's plea was supported by statutory audit records and consistent treatment of such transactions as completed sales. The Tribunal concluded that the claim for sales return should have been allowed as a justifiable deduction under the law.

The Tribunal examined the facts of the case, including the dispatch of goods in February and March 1972, and found that the sales were completed despite non-delivery to purchasers. The appellant had the option to treat the goods as purchases, but chose to recall them, indicating completed sales. The Tribunal emphasized that delivery is not a necessary element for a completed sale and that the appellant's treatment of these transactions as sales was consistent with statutory requirements. The Tribunal rejected the authorities' characterization of the sales as unfructified, stating that the claim for sales return should have been allowed based on the evidence presented and the provisions of the law.

The Tribunal referenced relevant legal provisions and previous court decisions to support its conclusion that the appellant's claim for sales return was valid. It highlighted the conditions for allowance of sales return under the law, emphasizing that the appellant's claim met the prescribed criteria. The Tribunal criticized the authorities for not allowing the deduction in the earlier year, despite the nature of the transactions being completed sales. It noted that such claims are typically allowed in similar cases and that the denial in this instance was based on technical grounds rather than substantive reasons. The Tribunal ultimately allowed the appeal, granting the appellant a reduction of Rs. 76,115.80 at 3-1/2 per cent, as the claim for sales return was deemed to be a justifiable deduction under the law and accounting practices.