2016 (2) TMI 1016

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y the Assam Board of Revenue. 2. The dealer contends that the component of transport subsidy should be excluded while determining the import value of coal, for the purpose of assessment of Entry Tax. But the Revenue Authorities found that the petitioner paid the transportation charge on coal and therefore this expenditure incurred by the dealer must be included in the turnover, for assessment to tax. Thus, the contention made to the contrary by the dealer for excluding the transportation cost while determining the turnover for the levy of Entry Tax was rejected. 3. We have heard Mr. O. P. Bhati, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Chetia, learned standing counsel, representing the respondents. 4. The learned counsel for t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pra) the Apex Court was called upon to consider as to whether the planting subsidy paid to the sugarcane-growers can be said to be a part of the price of the sugarcane purchased by them which can legitimately be included in the turnover of the appellants therein and whether the transport subsidy/ charges in excess 30 km paid by the appellants to third party lorry-owner for transporting sugarcane can be aggregated with the price of the sugarcane and included in the turnover of the appellants. In this context, the Apex Court answered at paragraphs 18 and 21 of the judgment, which are reproduced hereunder for ready reference: "18. What transpires from the above case-law is that the amounts paid by way of consideration by the purchaser to th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Though the agreements between the parties provided for delivery by the sugarcane growers at the factory gate and though the transport charges paid by the appellants were not to the sugarcane-growers but to third party lorry-owners, they were made for securing regular supply of sugarcane as per the requirements. Though payments were made at the instance of Government of Tamil Nadu they also became a part of the implied agreement between the appellants and the sugarcane- growers. They were not post-sale expenses. Those amounts were paid to ensure scheduled delivery of sugarcane. The sale of sugarcane became complete only thereafter. Those payments can be regarded either as payments made on behalf of the sugarcane-growers or payments made in ....