1966 (8) TMI 58

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., dismissing the petition of the appellant, O.P. No. 700 of 1964. The appellant is a firm trading in kerosene among other things. It is common ground that the appellant sells kerosene in two ways, in sealed tins and loose, without a container. 2.. The controversy before us relates to the sales of kerosene in sealed tins. The appellant claimed a deduction from his total turnover of the value of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r of the dealer(f) all amounts falling under the following two heads, when specified and charged for by the dealer separately, without including them in the price of goods sold; (i) freight; (ii) charges for packing and delivery." It is agreed by the department that the value of the tins has been specified and charged for separately. The only submission is that the value of the tins, in a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ill be usual or necessary. In other words the value of the packing when the article sold is a packaged article cannot be considered as coming within the expression "charges for packing and delivery" in rule 9 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963. 6.. The judgment under appeal, after dealing with the course of the trade in kerosene followed by the appellant, says: "In the circumstances, I....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mplied contract to purchase the packing material can readily be inferred. In such cases cost of packing materials cannot be termed as cost of delivery or services." (The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, by R.V. Patel, Second Edition, page 131). 8.. Against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissionerexhibit P-3-the appellant had a remedy by way of appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under section....