Skip to content


State of Madras Vs. Baliga Lighting Equipment (P.) Ltd. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case Number Tax Case No. 78 of 1968 (Revision No. 58)
Judge
Reported in[1969]23STC154(Mad)
AppellantState of Madras
RespondentBaliga Lighting Equipment (P.) Ltd.
Advocates: The Assistant Government Pleader
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
- .....out of which only fourteen customers asked for cover of the risk in transit of the goods and the charges incurred in that connection were recovered from the customers. it also appears that the insurance charges were independent of the price and not included therein. that being the case, the insurance charges cannot form part of the turnover of the dealer. rule 6 which provides for exemption or deductions covers only cases where but for the deduction the relative amount would be part of the price. the rule does not cover a case in which the amount in question is not part of the price, for in that case no exemption is at all required. our attention has been invited to the explanation to the definition of turnover in the act. but as we said, the insurance charges are incurred to cover the.....
Judgment:

Veeraswami, J.

1. The Tribunal finds that there were about 400 transactions effected by the company out of which only fourteen customers asked for cover of the risk in transit of the goods and the charges incurred in that connection were recovered from the customers. It also appears that the insurance charges were independent of the price and not included therein. That being the case, the insurance charges cannot form part of the turnover of the dealer. Rule 6 which provides for exemption or deductions covers only cases where but for the deduction the relative amount would be part of the price. The rule does not cover a case in which the amount in question is not part of the price, for in that case no exemption is at all required. Our attention has been invited to the Explanation to the definition of turnover in the Act. But as we said, the insurance charges are incurred to cover the risk in transit of the goods and we cannot view the expenditure as for something done in respect of the goods.

2. The tax case is dismissed.


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