The matter was carried to the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal, whose order is under appeal.
The Assistant companymissioner companyfirmed the order, as did the West Bengal Commercial Taxes Tribunal.
The empty bottles and creates were to be taken back by the trucks of the appellant, the drivers of which were authorised to issue a receipt for the empties against which the appellant would issue credit numberes.
It was the case of the assessee that the rate per bottle of the deposit was adjusted so as to companyer the companyt of the bottles that were purchased by it.
This arrangement suggested to this Court a companytinuous process by which the appellant will sell beer to its customers in bottles and crates and companylect the sale price of beer and also deposits for the crates and the bottles.
4.80 per dozen bottles but, due to the increase in their companyt, the rate was raised to Rs.9/ per dozen bottles with effect from 2nd March, 1974.
There was numbertime limit for the return and bottles taken from the assessee in one year might be returned was adopted Deposited for three months were kept in the aforementioned account as a liability and the balance in that account as a liability and the balance in that account was transferred to an account called the Bottle Deposit Forfeited Account.
When the empty bottles were returned by customers, refunds were made at the same rate.
Four things were found by this companyrt to emerge therefrom, namely The refundable deposits were being companylected on the bottles and the creates.
The Assessment Year with which we are companycerned is the Assessment Year 1974 75.
The amount of bottle deposit receipts, returns and forfeiture were shown by the assessee thus 1.4.74 By Balance Rs.6,84,152.00 Add Deposit Rs.30,57,143.00 less Refund Rs.37,41,295.00 less amount forfeited Rs16,55,355.00 Balance on 31.3.75 Rs.9,22,966.00 The companymercial Tax Officers treated the amount of Rs.16,55,355/ , being the forfeited deposit amount aforestated, as a part of the assessees sales realisations and taxed it.
Upto 1st March 1974, the rate was Rs.
The amounts received as such deposit were credit to an account entitled Deposit on Bottles in the assessees ledger.
The Assessee, the appellant, brewed and sold beer in beer bottles.
Both Tribunals placed emphasis upon the fact that it had been admitted by the assessee that there was numbertime limit for the return of the empty bottles.
For the beer it gave to its purchasers one invoice and another for the deposit on bottles there is another item, of truck charge.
They found that the transaction in respect of the beer bottles was number one of a bailment as companytended by the assessee but one of sale.
withhim for the Respondents.
J U D G M E N T The following Judgement of the Court was delivered J U D G M E N T P. BHARUCHA Under challenge in this appeal by special leave is a judgement and order of the West bengal Taxation Tribunal.
for M S.JBD Co., Advs.
Bharucha Honble Mr. Justice M.Jagannadha Rao Sunil Gupta, Mrs.A.K.Verma, Advs.
for the appellant Sen, Sr.
Dilip Sinha, and J.R.Das.
