TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1975 (8) TMI 67
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... allowed even in a later year, as longer as the claim is made within the time. Though the claims were apparently within time for the purpose of sales return, the assessing authority took the view that these were unfructified sales, because in these cases, the purchases failed to take delivery of the goods and hence he allowed only deduction for sales effected during the year under consideration to the extent of Rs. 2,918.48. The balance of the amounts to the extent of Rs. 76,115.80 relating to invoices made in the preceding year were considered, if at all, as proper deduction only for the immediately proceeding year and not for the year under consideration. It is, under these circumstances, that the assessing authority came to disallow the claim. Since the AAC has confirmed the disallowance, the appellant is in second appeal before us. 3. Thiru N. Venkatrama Iyer, the learned counsel for the appellant took us over the facts. He pointed out that the goods came back to the appellant only in the months of May and June 1972 and that the appellant could not have made the claim earlier. He pointed out that it is not the Department's case that the claim we belated. It is not even the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Tvl. Krishna Medicals, East Veli Street on 30th March, 1972 and in two consignments to Iqbal Agencies, 61 Tennur High Road, Trichy on 15th Feb., 1972 & 27th March, 1972. The only other sale was to Deputy Asst. Director Genreal, Govt. Medical Stores for a paltry amount of Rs. 39.31, where the goods were rejected because some ampoules got broken in transit. In these case, there is no basis for holding that the sale had not fructified at all. Invoices were made and the goods delivered to the carrier, the documents being sent through the Bank. For some reason or the other, the purchasers were not able to honour the documents. When the banks returned the same, the appellant had the option either to treat the goods as those of the purchases, realise them and credit the sale proceeds to the account of purchases, and sue for the difference and damage. The other alternative was to recall the goods, credit the purchasers with invoice amounts while debiting them with expenses. The appellant had chosen to adopt the latter course as a matter of business expediency. If the first course had been adopted, the authorities could not have possibly stated that it was unfructified sales. The fact that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l and the authorities appears to be justified. Reliance was placed by the State Representative on the decision of CIT vs. P.M. Rathod & Co. 10 STC 493 for the proposition that where delivery is reserved against payment, there is no completed sale. The decision has relevance to situs of accrual of profits under Income Tax Law. The Supreme Court pointed out that the appropriation in such a case was conditional and has not become absolute in the facts and circumstances of that case. Besides in that case the Supreme Court, was concerned with passing of property, when alone profit on sale accrued. But 'passing of property' is of no longer of any relevance in determining place and time of sale. Definition of sale under s. 2(d), read with Expln. (3) lays down the place and time of sale as the place and time of contract in the case of specific goods and in the case of future of unascertained goods, place and time of appropriation by the purchaser or seller "whether the assent of the other party is prior or subsequent to such appropriation." Explanation 3 to s. 2(n) of the Act is identical with s. 4(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 which has been explained by Delhi High Court in Khosla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ught to allow the same on the ground that these were unfructified sales. Having found that the sale had not taken place at all, the Tribunal was in error in deleting it from the turnover of a subsequent year and to in the year in which the relevative turnover was originally considered. The High Court therefore corrected this order. But the High Court did not obviously approve the conduct of the authorities in disallowing such claims in both the years. In fact, the High Court made it clear that such claim should be considered under s. 55 of the act in the earlier year. We are told that the authorities have not allowed the deduction in the earlier year till date in this case. We have found that it is not a case of unfructified sales but completed sales, where credit note or sales return advice have been subsequently issued because the goods returned to the appellant. Explanation to s. 2(r) excludes any amount refunded in respect of sales returns. There is no justification for the view that the goods should be returned by the customers themselves personally and not by the carrier or bank or any bailee on their behalf. Any goods received back, after a completed, sale is a sales return ....