TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1153
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o. 81 of 2009, STR No. 22 of 2010,. For the Respondents: Mr. Ishaan V. Patkar a/w Mr. Vinit V. Raje, Durgesh G. Desai and Mr. Yeshwant J. Patil i/by Alaksha Legal for the Respondents in STR No. 79 of 2009, STR No. 55 of 2017, STR No. 65 of 2017, STR No. 80 of 2009, STR No. 81 of 2009, STR No. 22 of 2010,. ORAL JUDGMENT (PER M.S. SONAK).:- 1. Heard Ms. Chavan learned counsel for the Applicants and Mr. Patkar learned counsel for the Respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the parties agree that common issues of law and facts arise in these references and therefore, these references could be disposed of by a common order. by treating Sales Tax Reference No. 79 of 2009 as the lead reference. 3. By judgment and order dated 12th Decem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... remaining assessment years; C) The respondent assessee filed appeals against those assessment orders in which demands were raised against them by contending that the inclusion of charges towards freight in the sales price was incorrect. D) The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeals by relying upon the tribunal's judgment in Second Appeal No. 1555 of 1993, decided on 11.04.1997; E) The respondent assessee then filed a second appeal before the tribunal. This time, tribunal, by considering the decision of the larger bench of the tribunal in Appeal No. 154 of 1998 along with Rectification Application No. 68 of 2021 on 31.05.2003 held that the freight cost incurred by the respondent assesses on behalf of the wholesale dealers, which....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion paid or payable to a dealer for any sale made including any sum charged for anything done by the dealer in respect of goods at the time of or before delivery thereof, other than (the cost of insurance for transit or of installation) when such cost is separately charged" 7. Ms. Chavan fairly admitted that 1st and 2nd explanations to the definition clauses were inserted in 1990 and 1992, respectively, and the 3rd explanation was inserted in 1998. In these references, as noted earlier, we are concerned with the assessments between 1992 and 1995. Still, Ms. Chavan submitted that these explanations, mainly clarificatory in nature, would apply to the assessment years that are the subject matter of these references. 8. Even if we go by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f goods to the dealer and would clearly be a component of the price charged to the purchaser. Accordingly, she submitted that the freight charges would form part of the sale price and be subject to sales tax. 11. The applicant raised an almost identical contention before this Court (Nagpur Bench) in the case of Commissioner of Sale Tax, Maharashtra State, Bombay vs. Ravi Trading Company 2018 48 GSTR 370. But the same was rejected by the Coordinate Bench. 12. The Division Bench, upon considering the decision in Hindustan Sugar Mills (supra) rejected such contentions in facts almost identical to those involved in the present references. 13. The Division Bench in Ravi Trading Company relied upon paragraph 7 of Hindustan Sugar Mills (Supra),....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice". 15. The decision of the Division Bench in Ravi Trading Company (Supra), along with paragraph 10 of the judgment in Hindustan Sugar Mill (supra), is sufficient to answer the referred question against the revenue and in favour of the respondent assessee. 16. Ms. Chavan tried to urge that the contracts between the respondent assessee and their purchaser were sham, invalid and void. She submitted that such contracts were only to artificially exclude the freight component from the sales price and evade sales tax. This contention cannot be accepted. 17. Firstly, such a question has not been referred to us for our determination. Secondly, Mr. Patkar pointed out that a similar argument, in similar circumstances, was rejected by the Karnata....