Related person and trade discount valuation principles clarified: familial links alone do not establish favoured buyer status.

Mere familial links between persons connected with a company and a partnership firm do not, by themselves, make the buyer a related person or favoured buyer; proof of a specially low price is required, and identical pricing to another buyer defeated that allegation. On valuation, under the pre-1975 regime, trade discount was deductible in computing assessable value, and where multiple discount rates were involved, only the legally permissible abatement could be applied. The discount claim was therefore accepted to the extent recognised by law, and refund relief followed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the CMO was a related person or favoured buyer; (ii) whether the discount allowed to the CMO was admissible, and if so to what extent.

Issue (i): Whether the CMO was a related person or favoured buyer.

Analysis: The concerns were of different legal character, one being a company and the other a partnership firm. Mere relationship between directors and partners did not, by itself, establish that the buyer was a related person. To treat the buyer as a favoured buyer, there had to be proof that a specially low price was charged, and no such proof existed where the same price was charged to the other buyer as well.

Conclusion: The CMO was neither a related person nor a favoured buyer, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the discount allowed to the CMO was admissible, and if so to what extent.

Analysis: Under the pre-1975 valuation regime, where different rates of trade discount were allowed, the legal principle applied was that discount was deductible in computing assessable value, but the allowable abatement was governed by the highest permissible rate when multiple discounts were in issue. Since the sales were not at an unduly low price and the excess discount formed part of the commercial arrangement, the claim for refund was held sustainable to that extent.

Conclusion: The discount claim was justified and the refund was admissible, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The order of the lower authorities was set aside and the assessee's refund claim succeeded with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A buyer is not a related person or favoured buyer merely because of familial links between persons connected with the two concerns, and where different trade discounts are allowed on genuine sales, only the legally permissible discount abatement can be taken into account in valuation.

---