TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (9) TMI 539
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rly called as Coco- cola and Fanta having its factory at Mysore road, Bangalore. For the assessment year 1977-78 in relation to the period from April 1, 1977 to March 31, 1978, the revision petitioner claimed exclusion of freight charges and octroi duty in computing the taxable turnover, on the ground that the freight charges had been independently charged and the octroi had been paid by him for and on behalf of the wholesaler and not as a seller of the goods. This contention of the revision petitioner did not find favour with the assessing authority, the appellate authority as well as the Tribunal and they rejected the exclusion claimed by the revision petitioner. Hence, this petition. 3.. We have heard the learned counsel on both sides. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner urged that the freight charges and octroi duty should have been excluded in the computation of the taxable turnover of the assessee as they have been incurred subsequent to the sale. As against this, the learned Government Pleader would contend that the amounts in question were liable to be included in the turnover of the assessee for the purpose of computation of the sales tax. 4.. The followi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a. It is the specific case of the revision petitioner that the sale was completed only at the factory site and the delivery of the goods at the place of customers' had been made at the option of the customers as per the agreement entered into between the revision petitioner and the buyer and this service has been rendered by the petitioner subsequent to the completion of the sale at the factory premises. In so far as the octroi duty is concerned, it is the case of the petitioner that the same has been paid or incurred for and on behalf of the customers. To substantiate this contention of the revision petitioner that the sale has been concluded and the delivery of the property has been made at the site of factory and that subsequent transportation of the goods from the place of sale to the place of buyer was done or made at the instance of the wholesale buyer against the payment of freight charges paid separately by the buyers, by the revision petitioner in his capacity as a transporter, he pressed into service clause 4 of the agreement entered into between him and the buyers, which reads as under: "4. That the company will sell its products to you at the rate applicable from tim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... petitioner had sold Fanta and Coca-cola, the products manufactured by the revision petitioner, during the relevant assessment year, at Rs. 23 per crate, which is an ex-factory rate, as per condition No. 4 of the contract, at the factory site vide para 14 of the judgment, is not justified in holding that the so-called delivery of the products by the appellant at the factory had remained only on paper and that actually the goods were sold and delivered at the wholesalers' godown in the vehicles maintained by the revision petitioner, in the absence of any cogent materials to draw such an inference. According to the Tribunal, as the goods were not taken delivery of by the wholesale buyer at the factory site, it is a delivery at the place of the buyer by the revision petitioner. This may not be correct in view of the fact that in this case, the revision petitioner has a dual role to play, one as that of seller and the other as that of a carrier or transporter of the goods in view of the above nature of the contract and in view of the fact that the freight charges were collected by him for transportation of the goods from the factory site to the place of the buyer. This is clearly borne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the buyer had no option but to transport the goods only through the vehicles belonging to the revision petitioner, that makes no difference because that is a matter between the buyer and the revision petitioner in his capacity as a carrier of the goods and it is nothing to do with his capacity as a seller of the goods. No doubt, it is true that the revision petitioner has charged freight charges uniformly irrespective of the distance. For this the revision petitioner contended that it has charged uniform rate of Rs. 4 per crate with a view to maintain a uniform price of their product throughout their territory of operation and charging of such equalised price is a common trade practice. The petitioner in support of his contention placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Premier Breweries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka reported in [1984] 56 STC 14. In this decision, this Court has approved the charging of uniform rate of freight charges irrespective of distance of transportation. Therefore, the revision petitioner with a view to see that his products should be available for sale at all places at a uniform price, has charged the freight charges at uniform rate. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....place of the buyer was done or undertaken by the revision petitioner in his capacity as a transporter or a carrier agent of the buyer and the said transportation having been made for and on behalf of the buyer, it has to be construed that the octroi charges were collected and paid by him in his capacity as a transport agent of the wholesaler, on whose behalf the goods were transported. Therefore, the octroi charges collected and paid by the revision petitioner cannot also be included in the sales turnover of the revision petitioner for computing the tax. They were subsequent to the sale and were paid by the revision petitioner at the octroi gate in his capacity as a carrier of the goods. 11.. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, we hold that the freight charges and the octroi charges cannot be included in the sales tax turnover of the assessee for the purpose of computing the sales tax. In this view of the matter, the judgment passed by the Tribunal as well as the appellate and the assessing authority are liable to be set aside and the revision petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be allowed. 12.. In the result, therefore, the revision petition filed by the petition....