1992 (8) TMI 247

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, charging of freight along with other charges separately and adding all the items together to arrive at the total bill amount, is to be excluded for as cost of freight separately charged? (In S.J.C. Nos. 46 and 47 of 1985) Whether having regard to the agreement between the dealer and the purchaser, the Tribunal was right in holding that the dealer was not entitled to charge separately for transport charges and consequently the fact of its separate billing for receipt of charges would not entitle him to claim such deduction? (In S.J.C. No. 94 of 1986) 3.. The dealer in each case entered into agreement with the railway authorities for supply of ballasts which were to be de....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....el for the dealer, was sufficient compliance with the requirements relating to the separate charge and therefore, the amount in question should not have been subjected to tax. The learned counsel for the Revenue submits that the requirements of law as laid down in section 5(2)(A)(a)(iii) were not complied with. It is pointed out that even if it is accepted that the railway authorities had accepted bifurcation of the rate originally agreed upon, yet there is no reference to prescribed charges alone and the amount shown separately related not only to transport charges but also to other charges.   5.. For resolution of the controversy, it is relevant to refer to sections 2(h) and 5(2)(A)(a)(iii) of the Act which read as follows: "2.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erned. In order to be entitled to the deduction under section 5(2)(A)(a)(iii), the dealer is required to prove that the cost of freight or of delivery for the purpose of sale or supply of goods was separately charged. Therefore, materials were required to be placed by the dealer to prove its stand that the cost of freight or of delivery was separately charged. Even accepting that there was bifurcation of rates so far as different items are concerned, yet the transport charges alone were not separately indicated. The correspondences on which reliance is placed by the dealer indicated that a portion of the agreed price was relatable to "transport charges and other charges." It did not relate to transport charges alone. The Tribunal has rec....