3 4 5 The second party agrees to sell and deliver the cane by loading there as per the terms of this agreement to the first party.
Aggrieved, the appellant filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Tribunal before the High Court of Madras.
It is the responsibility of the first party to arrange transportation of the above delivered cane to the factory.
The appellants appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
An agreement was entered into between the appellant and the cane growers.
During this period, the agreement for sale and purchase of sugar which was entered into between the appellant and the cane growers where the appellant is referred as the first party and the cane growers as the second party provided inter alia Both the parties agree to act according to the provisions of Madras Sugar Factory Control Rules, 1949, Sugarcane Control Order, 1996 and the orders of Tamil Nadu Government Agricultural Cane Department and the Director of Sugar Cane Commissioner of Tamil Nadu The Second Party agrees to sell the entire cane planted to be planted in the land specified in the schedule to this agreement to the first party for the companytrol price fixed by the Government from time to time.
The assessment years in question are 1987 88 and 1988 89.
However, both the parties agree to follow the orders passed from time to time by the Director of Sugar Commissioner of Sugar, Tamil Nadu.
The other clauses of the agreement, broadly speaking, related to the appellants financing of the growth and harvesting of the sugarcane and its companytrol over the cutting and disposal of the sugarcane.
By an order dated 29th June 1990 the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer held that the transport charges formed part of the taxable turnover of the appellant under the Act and assessed the appellant accordingly for the years in question.
The matter ultimately reached the Taxation Special Tribunal which held in favour of the Revenue following the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in Chengalvarayan Co operative Sugar Mills Ltd. V. State of Tamil Nadu, and Thiru Arooran Sugars Ltd. V. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes both reported in 105 STC 497 Mad .
In terms of the agreement, the appellant arranges transport of the sugarcane from the fields to the appellants mill.
The question is whether the transport charges are excludible from the taxable turnover of the appellant for the purpose of purchase tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959?
According to the appellant, the Sugar Cane Control Order, 1966 hereafter referred to as the Control Order applies and the price fixed under the Control Order was the purchase price for determining the taxable turnover of the appellant.
RUMA PAL, J. The appellant has a sugar mill and purchases sugarcane from cane growers.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition following its decision in Chengalvarayan Co operatives case.
As an alternative case it has been submitted that numberamount which was incurred subsequent to the sale or delivery of the sugarcane by the cane growers to the appellant was includable in the taxable turnover.
