1995 (9) TMI 339

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... a reference under section 44(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, made by the Tribunal at the instance of the assessee. The following questions have been referred: (i) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, there was any implied sale of packing material along with the fertilisers? (ii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the sales of coal tar to S....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....se of computing the turnover. Our attention has been invited to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Taxes, Assam v. Prabhat Marketing Co. Ltd. [1967] 19 STC 84; AIR 1967 SC 602, Jamana Flour & Oil Mill (P.) Ltd. v. State of Bihar [1987] 65 STC 462; AIR 1987 SC 1207 and Raj Sheel v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1989] 74 STC 379; AIR 1989 SC 1696. In the last case, three contingenci....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e third contingency is where there is a sale of the product with transfer of the container without any sale consideration therefor, i.e., sale of the product without sale of the container. In such a case, the entire price will be taken to be the price of the product and sales tax levied accordingly. Whether a sale is under one or the other of the above contingencies is a question of fact which has....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....icant proportion to the price charged per bag of fertiliser. There are no circumstances from which an inference can be drawn that the parties intended that the transaction would include sale of the polythene bag also or that the price for the polythene bags was reckoned for determining the price of the product. In these circumstances, the only irresistible inference is that there was no implied sa....