TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (3) TMI 606
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 355 and 357 of 1994. 2.. Vide the above writ petitions the present respondent BRPL challenged the assessment orders passed under section 11(3) of the Assam (Sales of Petroleum and Petroleum Products including Motor Spirit and Lubricants) Taxation Act, 1955, for short "the Taxation Act" and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The assessment orders were initially challenged by BRPL by way of revision and as the order of revision passed by the Commissioner of Taxes was also the subject-matter of challenge in the writ petitions, vide common judgment and order dated March 8, 1996 [Bongaigaon Refinery & Petrochemicals Limited v. Commissioner of Taxes, Assam [1996] 103 STC 132 (Gauhati)] the learned single Judge allowed the relief claimed by the wri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... meet the situation. Basing on the recommendation of the said committee, the Oil Co-ordination Committee fixed retention prices for each products for each refinery and also fixed up an ex-factory price. The relevant observation reads as under: "Retention prices have been fixed for each products for each refinery by the OCC, based on the crude throughout standard pattern of production, delivered cost of crude oil, refinery cost and the appropriate return on capital employed. Whereas the refinery is entitled to retain its appropriate retention price for each product, they recover on their sale to the marketing companies on the basis of ex-refinery price, fixed by the Government for each product. The difference between the ex-refinery price....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....refinery price and retention price from the OCC to make the sale deed complete. BRPL thus get their retention price as fixed by OCC and the amount received from two sources is a part of the sale price and BRPL is liable to pay taxation on both the amounts, i.e., the amount received from the IOC against the bills raised by them and also on the amount received from OCC. There is no controversy or dispute that BRPL is paying the tax on the amount of the bill raised to IOC. 7.. In the impugned judgment the learned single Judge has dealt in detail the definition of "sale", "sale price" and "turnover" as defined under the Taxation Act, 1955 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. As per the agreement between the BRPL and IOC, the former is requir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions of the honourable Andhra Pradesh High Court in Central Wines [1982] 49 STC 83 and Ranka Cables [1990] 78 STC 111 were followed by the honourable Kerala High Court and Allahabad High Court. The learned single Judge also relied on the above decisions. The first submission of the learned counsel for the appellant before us is that for the period 1982-83 to 1987-88 the BRPL received a sum of Rs. 166 crores and odd from the OCC and in their balance sheet they have shown the receipt of the above amount under the heading "Sale of goods purchased" and as such the gross sales in respect of the goods were thus the combination of the amount received as sale price from the 10C and from OCC, being the difference between the ex-refinery price and re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment the IOC makes the payment of the refinery products against the bills drawn against them they become owner of the same and their sale transaction is not dependent on whether OCC pays the difference to BRPL or not. It is not a case of receipt of consideration from more than one quarter source. 10.. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously argued that the retention price of the refinery is the actual price which has been received by the BRPL for the goods sold by them and as such they are liable to pay taxes on the said retention prices. According to the appellants the retention price is nothing but the cost price as well as the profit of the unit and as the respondent is entitle to retain/receipt the entire retention price the di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the above a query was raised to the learned counsel for the appellant whether BRPL is entitled to pay their taxes at Rs. 1,000 only and/or the tax realised on the excess of Rs. 1,000 is refundable to BRPL. The learned counsel in their wisdom declined to commit, lest the State of Assam may be affected adversely. In spite of silence, the reply to the above query is a definite "No". The dealer is bound to pay the taxes on the sale price and although he is not entitled to retain the entire sale price, he cannot claim concession or refund in respect of the tax due. This goes to show that the amount received by the BRPL from the oil pool account is nothing but a compensation/subsidy given by the Government in order to have a uniform price stru....