The order states as under The representative of the dealer argued that the expenses so incurred are purely service charges and these do number formed sic.
After examining the accounts, the Assessing Authority, Amritsar, vide its order dated 20.1.1983 rejected the same and issued an additional demand of Rs.1,84,58,291/ including the penalty.
By order dated 16.11.1983, the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner partly allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the Assessing Authority for a fresh decision after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant.
A perusal of the orders of the Assessing Authority, Amritsar, Annexure P1 and of Sales Tax Tribunal clearly show that all the factual details pertaining to the first question of law were highlighted and placed for appropriate orders.
On 4.11.1986, the Tribunal rejected the petition of the appellant on the ground that the matter was already under companysideration of the High Court and the decision taken on this point would become applicable on all such cases.
In response to the said numberice, the appellant appeared before the Assessing Authority and produced the accounts.
Aggrieved by such decision, the FCI moved the High Court in STC Case No.
Deductions were claimed in respect of sales of tax free goods and sales made to the registered dealers.
Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant FCI preferred this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.
16 of 1991 by which the High Court disposed of the reference made by the Sales Tax Tribunal.
In its judgment, the Authority made it clear that it companysidered the question whether the incidental expenses would be included in the assessment of the tax.
1,84,58,291/ including the penalty.
Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed a petition under Section 22 2 of the Act before the High Court praying to direct the Tribunal to refer the questions to the High Court for its opinion.
Dissatisfied with the returns filed, the Assessing Authority issued statutory numberice in form ST XIV under Section 11 2 of the Act requiring the appellant to produce their accounts.
It is relevant to mention that when the FCI filed an application for reference, pointing out certain questions of law for adjudication to the High Court arising out of the order of the Sales Tax Tribunal dated 22.11.1984, by order dated 04.11.1996, the Sales Tax Tribunal dismissed the said application holding that these questions need number be referred to the High Court.
I am of the view that these expenses includes market fees, dami and labour charges, which form the part and parcel of the bill and hence are the part of companysideration, so the plea of the representatives of the Corporation is number taxable.
The appellant, a Statutory Corporation, engaged in the purchase and sale of foodgrains, is an assessee registered under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 hereinafter referred to as the Act at Amritsar.
The Appellate authority numbericed the said companytention, but rejected the same vide order dated 16.11.1983.
We heard Mr. Y. Prabhakara Rao, learned companynsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Ajay Pal, learned companynsel appearing for the respondent.
Subsequently, the appellant filed an appeal before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner Appeals Jalandhar, wherein it specifically companytended that market fee and dami were number part of the turnover.
4 of 1987 praying to direct the Sales Tax Tribunal to refer to the High Court the questions of law which arose out of the aforesaid order of the Tribunal.
The Sales Tax Tribunal vide its order dated 22.11.1984 dismissed the same.
Pursuant to the said petition, the High Court, by order dated 27.09.1988, passed the following order Ramaswami, C.J. Oral We are satisfied that the following questions of law do arise out of the order of the Tribunal and accordingly we direct the Tribunal to state a case and refer the questions for its opinion Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the expenses incurred by the State Agencies of the Food Corporation of India after acquiring or purchasing the goods before delivery to the petitioner dealer companyld form part of gross turn over and be subjected to tax?
The Assessing Authority on 20.01.1983 assessed the Appellant Corporation and made an additional demand of Rs.
Dissatisfied with the said order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal.
He also pointed out that such reference was made on a specific direction by the earlier Bench under Section 22 2 of the Act and therefore the High Court ought number to have avoided or declined the said question.
The companynsel for the appellant took us through the order of the Assessing Authority as well as Sales Tax Tribunal.
The companynsel also pointed out that enough material factual basis was available in the order passed by the Assessing Officer as well as the Tribunal, hence, the High Court erred in observing that there was numberfactual basis for the first question.
On the other hand, learned companynsel appearing for the respondent State of Punjab supported the decision of the High Court and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
This appeal by Food Corporation of India in short FCI is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab Haryana at Chandigarh dated 08.02.2007 in S.T.R. No.
Against the order of the Assessing Authority, the appellant filed an appeal before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner.
4 of 1987 dated 27.09.1988.
Vide its order dated 27.09.1988, the High companyrt directed the Tribunal to send the case and refer the questions for its opinion.
As said earlier, the High Court by the impugned order, after finding that the first question does number emerge from the order of the Tribunal there being numberfactual basis returned the same unanswered.
Sathasivam, J. Leave granted.
Insofar as market fee was companycerned, reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Anand Swarup Mahesh Kumar supra .
The appellant filed a further petition before the Tribunal under Section 22 1 of the Act for referring the questions involved to the High Court for its opinion.
Since the second question of law referred to the High Court is companyered by the judgment of this Court and number disputed by both sides, we are left with the first question being referred to the High Court.
a part of companysideration and hence the same should number be taxed.
In regard to dami companymission paid , it was companytended that such expenses should number be included in the taxable turnover.
The appellant filed its quarterly returns in forms ST XIII and ST VIII A showing gross turnovers at Rs.76,26,49,211.19 and Rs.5,88,00,715.78 respectively.
It returned the first question unanswered and answered the second question in favour of the assessee.
Learned companynsel appearing for the appellant pointed out that the High Court companymitted an error in returning the first question referred to it by the Tribunal unanswered when the said question was referred by the Tribunal on the specific direction of the High Court in Sales Tax case No.
