Skip to content


Deputy Commissioner (C.T.), Coimbatore Division Vs. L.G. Balakrishna and Brothers (P.) Ltd. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberTax Case No. 86 of 1974 (Revision No. 81 of 1974)
Judge
Reported in[1979]43STC258(Mad)
AppellantDeputy Commissioner (C.T.), Coimbatore Division
RespondentL.G. Balakrishna and Brothers (P.) Ltd.
Appellant Advocate The Additional Government Pleader
Respondent Advocate C. Natarajan, Adv.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
- .....set apart for running the canteen and the sum of rs. 1,680 representing the electricity charges as expenses incurred in the running of the canteen. we are unable to accept this contention. as a matter of fact, the assessee claimed that even depreciation charges should be taken into account and very rightly the tribunal rejected that claim.3. as far as the electricity charges of rs. 1,680 are concerned, it cannot be denied that those expenses were actually incurred. the only contention then relates to the rental value of rs. 4,800. the learned additional government pleader contends that the rental value was only estimated and that, therefore, it cannot be said to be an expenditure actually incurred. as a matter of fact, since the building belonged to the assessee, the assessee allowed the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Ismail, J.

1. This is a petition to revise the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal holding that the canteen sales were exempt from tax since the assessee had subsidised 25 per cent of the total expenses in running the canteen, as prescribed by the relevant Government Order. The Tribunal has stated :

The total expenses subsidised in regard to the head office at Coimbatore comes to 48 per cent and the branch at Karur comes to 28 per cent. Hence we find that the turnover of Rs. 12,498.00 and Rs. 24,021 respectively are eligible for exemption.

2. The learned Additional Government Pleader contends that the Tribunal committed a mistake in taking into account the sum of Rs. 4,800 representing the estimated rental value of the building set apart for running the canteen and the sum of Rs. 1,680 representing the electricity charges as expenses incurred in the running of the canteen. We are unable to accept this contention. As a matter of fact, the assessee claimed that even depreciation charges should be taken into account and very rightly the Tribunal rejected that claim.

3. As far as the electricity charges of Rs. 1,680 are concerned, it cannot be denied that those expenses were actually incurred. The only contention then relates to the rental value of Rs. 4,800. The learned Additional Government Pleader contends that the rental value was only estimated and that, therefore, it cannot be said to be an expenditure actually incurred. As a matter of fact, since the building belonged to the assessee, the assessee allowed the canteen to be run in that building. But if a building was taken on lease for running the canteen, certainly the rent would form part of the expenses incurred in running the canteen. Under the circumstances, simply because the assessee's own building was used for the purpose of running the canteen, we are not able to accept the argument that the estimated rental value thereof should not be added to the total expenses incurred for running the canteen for the purpose of calculating 25 per cent thereof with reference to the relevant Government Order.

4. Under these circumstances, we are unable to hold that the Tribunal committed any error of law. We accordingly dismiss the revision petition. There will be no order as to costs.


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