TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1990 (9) TMI 321
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1977-78, the appellant-company was assessed on a taxable turnover of Rs. 27,62,032.32 as against the declared taxable turnover of Rs. 27,35,223.60 levying a tax of Rs. 2,75,988.62 and additional tax of Rs. 27,598.86. In doing so, the assessing authority rejected the claim for exemption of Rs. 26,808.72 which the appellant had claimed as freight charges. 3.. Aggrieved with disallowance, it filed an appeal before the first appellate authority, namely, the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Bangalore. That appeal came to be dismissed by an order dated August 30, 1980. Against the said order of dismissal, it preferred a further appeal to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal where it remained ex parte after lodging the appeal. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d as follows: "The appellant despatched goods to the customers by rail under railway receipts with 'freight to pay' and made out invoices at the catalogue rate, deducted discount from it and charged sales tax on the balance and then gave credit for the amount of freight to be paid by the customers." 5.. We have seen a sample of invoice which has been annexed to the petition found at page 24 of the paper book. It does not tally with the description of the invoice referred to by the Supreme Court in the case of Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products Ltd. [1969] 24 STC 487. What has happened in the invoice in question is that the catalogue price is disclosed for its products. Thereafterwards, freight discount representing the freight charges is ....