TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (7) TMI 896
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent of tax on such amount of freight and, therefore, such additional tax was imposed by the assessing authority. The first appeal filed by the assessee also came to be rejected by the learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) by orders dated February 28, 1994 and September 6, 1995 for the two assessment periods 1988-89 and 1989-90. The assessee being aggrieved by these orders filed second appeal before the Rajasthan Tax Board which allowed the appeals of the assessee by the impugned order dated January 27, 1997 and held that no tax could be imposed under the provisions of section 2(h) defining "sale price" under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The said definition of section 2(h) of the CST Act defines the term as under: "2(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fore, amount of freight formed part of "sale price" and the learned Tax Board has erred in allowing the appeals of the respondent-assessee. Mr. Ramit Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee on the opposite side vehemently submitted that while dealing with the revision petitions filed by the Revenue, this court cannot go into the questions of facts and the findings of facts arrived at by the final fact body, i.e., Tax Board, are binding on this court and cannot be upset in revisional jurisdiction. He further submits that the controversy is fully covered by the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of Hindustan Sugar Mills Ltd. [1979] 43 STC 13 as well as a decision of this court in case of Mewar Khaniz Udyog, Udaipur v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....open having been decided by this court as well as the apex court. He has relied upon the following portion of the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of Hindustan Sugar Mills Ltd. [1979] 43 STC 13 (at page 30): ". . . There may be a case where the contract of sale may not be f.o.r. destination railway station, but the price alone may be so. Where such is the case, the contract does not have all the incidents of a f.o.r. destination railway station contract, but merely the price is stipulated on that basis. The terms of such a contract may provide that the delivery shall be complete when the goods are put on rail and thereafter it shall be at the risk of the purchaser. Such a stipulation would make the railway agent of the purc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessing authority taken by the assessing authority is of no consequence at this stage once the final fact body, i.e., Tax Board on the basis of such material before it has concluded that the contract in question was ex-works and not "f.o.r. destination". In the opinion of this court, no roving inquiry can be held into the facts in revisional jurisdiction again at the instance of Revenue at this stage. The contention sought to be raised on behalf of the Revenue that the contract in question was "f.o.r. destination" has no legs to stand upon. Merely because different price is charged from the two purchasers of the same destination place during the contemporary period, it does not in any manner result in the conclusion that the price is incl....