1. There appears to be no substance in this petition. The assessees in this case claimed deduction of a turnover of Rs. 1,62,749 as relating to accommodation sales. Before the Tribunal, it was contended for the revenue that they were not entitled to deduction as the circumstances in which the supply of bread was made to hospitals other than the Egmore Hospital did not attract Rule 6(c) of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules, 1959. The Tribunal declined to accept this contention but confirmed the deduction allowed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
2. The assessees entered into a contract with the Director of Medical Services for the supply of bread to the various Government hospitals in the City at the rate of Re. 0.57 per kilogram. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes has found that the assessees supplied bread only to the Egmore Hospital from their own stock but supplied bread to the other hospitals by using the stocks from sister concerns in the City and selling them at the same rate at which they had contracted to supply bread to the Government hospitals. In the accounts they showed these transactions as accommodation sales and recorded the names of the sister concerns which supplied bread to the various hospitals. It appears that instead of r the assessees taking the bread from the stocks of the sister concerns and supplying the same to the various hospitals, they arranged with the sister concerns to supply bread directly. But that can make no difference to the position that the bread supplied to the various hospitals except the Egmore Hospital was not from the stock of the assessees but from the stocks of the sister concerns.
3. On these facts it was contended before the Tribunal by the State Representative who took out a petition in the appeal filed by the assessees for permission to urge the point that the supply of bread in the manner mentioned above should be taken to involve two sales and that it was not a case of accommodation sales. It was suggested to the Tribunal that the assessees' taking bread from the stocks of the sister concerns was not a casual affair but was systematically arranged and hardly could they be described as accommodation sales. But the Tribunal refused to accept these contentions and considered that the facts squarely fell within the ambit of Rule 6(c) of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules, 1959.
4. In our opinion, the Tribunal was right in the view it took. 'Turnover' is defined by Section 2(r) of the Act which excludes from its purview accommodation sales. Explanation (2) by Clause (iv) indicates what an accommodation sale means. Where for accommodating a particular customer, a dealer obtains goods from another dealer and immediately disposes of the same to the said customer, the sale in respect of such goods should be included in the turnover of the latter but not in that of the former. The idea of an accommodation sale is further expanded by Rule 6(c) which is as follows :
(c) all amounts for which the dealer sells articles which are not in his stock but which are obtained by him from another dealer specially to accommodate a particular customer and are immediately sold to such customer provided that the sale is entered in the accounts then and there as an accommodation sale together with the name of the dealer from whom the articles were obtained and provided that the accommodating dealer does not make a profit out of the transaction.
5. It may be seen from this sub-rule that the main elements of an accommodation sale are that the goods sold by the dealer are not from his stock but taken from the stock of another dealer, that they are so taken with the intention to accommodate a particular dealer, and that the sale is immediately effected. These elements are literally satisfied in this case. As has been found now as a fact, the assessees sold the bread to the hospitals other than the Egmore Hospital not from their own stock but supplied it from the stocks of the sister concerns. The supply was made immediately after the bread was taken from the stocks of the sister concerns. In fact it was supplied directly by the sister concerns to the various hospitals. It is obvious that this arrangement had been entered into by the assessees with the sister concerns in order to accommodate their customers, namely, the various hospitals, they having no adequate stock of bread with them. The further conditions laid down by the proviso to Rule 6(c) also appear to be satisfied. Here again it has been found as a fact that the assessees have entered in their accounts that these sales were effected as accommodation sales mentioning the names of the dealers from whom the supply was made to the assessees' customers, and that they charged no profit. We have to read the definition of turnover and the scope of an accommodation sale as mentioned in Sub-rule (c) of Rule 6 in the light of the language employed. It is not permissible to import into the statute or the rule one's own ideas or notions of an accommodation sale. We find no indication in the statutory provision or the rule that the accommodation sales should be casual and that the supply of bread from the stock of another dealer should not be a regular affair. If that was the intention of the rule-making authority, it has not been expressed in Rule 6(c). Nor did the Legislature make its intention clear in that respect.
6. The petition is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 100.