Uniform sale price alone does not prove tax collection; penalty provisions fail without proof of actual or implied collection.

A uniform or inclusive sale price, by itself, does not establish collection of tax on exempt sales. On the facts, the invoices showed nil tax, the books did not record any tax collection, and contemporaneous material did not prove direct, indirect, or implied recovery from dealers or customers; the Tribunal's finding of no collection was upheld. Because the foundational fact of tax collection was not proved, the statutory provisions for wrongful collection and penalty could not be invoked, and the Revenue's appeals failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee had collected any amount by way of tax on exempted sales so as to attract penalty. (ii) Whether the provisions governing collection of tax and penalty were attracted on the facts of the case.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee had collected any amount by way of tax on exempted sales so as to attract penalty.

Analysis: The record showed that the invoices reflected nil tax on exempted sales, the books maintained under the relevant Indian accounting system did not reflect any amount collected as tax, and the contemporaneous material did not establish any separate collection from distributors, retailers, or customers. The existence of notional entries in the parallel overseas accounting system and the uniform sale price structure were insufficient by themselves to prove that tax had in fact been collected. On the facts, the Tribunal's finding that no direct, indirect, or implied collection of tax was proved was upheld.

Conclusion: The issue is answered in favour of the assessee; no collection of tax was proved.

Issue (ii): Whether the provisions governing collection of tax and penalty were attracted on the facts of the case.

Analysis: Penalty under the statutory scheme could follow only if collection of tax in contravention of the exemption conditions was established. Since the foundational fact of collection was not proved, the basis for invoking the penalty provision and the provision dealing with wrongful collection did not survive. The Court also relied on the principle that a uniform retail price or an inclusive price notation does not, without more, establish collection of sales tax.

Conclusion: The issue is answered in favour of the assessee; the penalty and allied provisions were not attracted.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's appeals fail because the finding that the assessee had collected tax on exempted goods was not sustained, and the penalty orders were rightly set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: A uniform or inclusive sale price, by itself, does not amount to collection of tax unless the record proves actual, implied, or indirect collection; penalty provisions predicated on such collection cannot be invoked without that foundational proof.

---