Skip to content


Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Basic Shoe Factory - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberSales Tax Reference No. 524 of 1974
Judge
Reported in[1979]43STC152(All)
AppellantCommissioner of Sales Tax
RespondentBasic Shoe Factory
Appellant Advocate The Standing Counsel
Respondent Advocate B.P. Agrawal, Adv.
Excerpt:
- - it is well-settled that a receipt in the course of business will not necessarily or automatically be a receipt arising from business......of the assessee in respect of sale of shoes on the footing that this amount formed part of the sale consideration. this view was upheld in appeal. the appellate authority held that the assessee received the amount because the price of goods in terms of rupees had increased.2. the assessee went up in revision. the revising authority found :it seems that the state trading corporation, agra, made purchases of shoes from the assessee. thereafter the shoes were exported outside india. on account of devaluation, the corporation got more amount in terms of rupees. on receipt of the excess amount the corporation on its own accord distributed the same among its customers including the assessee. when the sale transactions took place between the assessee and the state trading corporation, there.....
Judgment:

Satish Chandra, C.J.

1. The assessee manufactures and sells shoes. For the assessment year 1966-67, it disclosed gross sales at Rs. 6,57,366 of which U. P. sales were of Rs. 2,57,738. All these sales were made by the assessee to the State Trading Corporation at Agra. The corporation paid the entire agreed price to the assessee. Subsequently, the corporation paid a sum of Rs. 21,316 to the assessee on account of devaluation of currency. The assessing authority brought this amount to tax as part of the turnover of the assessee in respect of sale of shoes on the footing that this amount formed part of the sale consideration. This view was upheld in appeal. The appellate authority held that the assessee received the amount because the price of goods in terms of rupees had increased.

2. The assessee went up in revision. The revising authority found :

It seems that the State Trading Corporation, Agra, made purchases of shoes from the assessee. Thereafter the shoes were exported outside India. On account of devaluation, the corporation got more amount in terms of rupees. On receipt of the excess amount the corporation on its own accord distributed the same among its customers including the assessee. When the sale transactions took place between the assessee and the State Trading Corporation, there was no agreement between the parties that the assessee would get any amount on account of devaluation of rupees. The corporation was not bound to make any payment out of the money which it received on account of devaluation from ex-India parties. There is no material on record to show that the disputed amount formed part of the sale consideration.

3. On this ground, the inclusion of this amount in the turnover was held invalid.

4. At the instance of the Commissioner, the revising authority has referred the following question of law for our opinion :

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 21,316 received from the State Trading Corporation on account of devaluation of the currency did not form part of the turnover of the dealer ?

5. On the finding, it is clear that the contract of sale was between the assessee and the State Trading Corporation. The agreed price was in due course paid by the State Trading Corporation to the assessee. The sale transaction thus became complete and fully executed. There was no agreement between the parties that the shoes will be exported. There was no agreement that in case the rupee was devalued and the corporation received extra amount, it will be repaid to the assessee. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the amount of Rs. 21,316 that was paid by the State Trading Corporation on its own to the assessee represented the sale consideration for the contract of sale with the corporation. It was a casual receipt which may be somewhat connected with the business carried on by the assessee but it could not be part of the turnover.

6. Turnover has been defined under Clause (i) of Section 2 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, as under :

'Turnover' means the aggregate amount for which goods are supplied or distributed by way of sale or are sold by a dealer either directly or through another, on his account or on account of others, whether for cash or deferred payment or other valuable consideration:

Provided...

7. The amount has to be the consideration for the sale or supply of goods. On the findings, it is clear that the amount in question was not received as part of the sale consideration. It was received on account of a fortuitous circumstance and that the corporation decided to share the bonanza with its own suppliers. On the facts, it is clear that the sale consideration receivable by the assessee from the corporation did not either in fact or in law appreciate in value so that it can be said that this amount constituted part of the sale consideration. It is well-settled that a receipt in the course of business will not necessarily or automatically be a receipt arising from business. The receipt of the amount in question may be said to be a receipt in the course of business of the assessee but it will not be arising from business in the sense of falling within the purview of the definition of the term 'turnover'. In other words, since it was not part of the sale consideration, it could not be liable to sales tax.

8. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the negative in favour of the assessee and against the department. The assessee will be entitled to costs, which ate assessed at Rs. 200.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //