Commercial Taxs Officer vs M/S Roca Bathroom Products Pvt. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 451 Raj/2

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

         D.B. Sales Tax Revision / Reference No. 282/2018

Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti-Evasion, Circle-II, Jaipur
                                                                  ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
M/s. Roca Bathroom Products Pvt. Limited, 223-226, M.I.A.
Alwar
                                                                ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Punit Singhvi through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Singhal through VC

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

Judgment

19/01/2022

1. The appellant-revenue has filed this sales tax revision under

Section 84 of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 read with

Section 86 Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 against the order dated

05.06.2018 passed by the Division Bench of Rajasthan Tax Board

in appeal No.902/2017.

2. The issue in consideration as formulated by the revenue

pertains to, whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the

Rajasthan Tax Board was justified in law in not appreciating the

provisions of Section 2(36) of the RVAT Act and Section 2(h) of

CST Act and thereby deleting the tax, interest of penalty qua the

freight amount which was part of invoice?

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-revenue Mr. Punit Singhvi

submits that with regard to freight value and assessable value in

computation, the issue is no more res-integra in the light of

(2 of 4) [STR-282/2018]

judgment passed in India Meters Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

reported in 2010 (9) SCC 423 whereby the Apex Court has held

that freight and insurance charges are held to be part of sale

price. The next contention of petitioner was that the same is

charged on the invoice and therefore, the same will constitute

consideration as per provisions of the RVAT Act, 2003 and CST

Act, 1956.

4. Per contra, the submissions of learned counsel Mr. Vivek

Singhal for the respondent-company is that the Tax Board while

passing the impugned order dated 05.06.2018 has categorically

held in para 11 as under:-

"11. bl rjg bl izdj.k esa rF;kRed :i ls ;g Li"V Fkk fd izR;FkhZ O;ogkjh }kjk vius eky dk fodz; ,Dl&odZ fd;k x;k Fkk ,oa ifjogu ds okLrfod [kpksZa dks fcyksa ds i`Fkd ls n'kkZrs gq, vius dszrkvksa ls olwy fd;k x;k FkkA ,slh fLFkfr esa osV vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2¼36½ ,oa 2¼,p½ esa dj mn~xzg.kh; ugha gksrk gSA osV vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2¼36½ ,oa dsUnzh; vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2¼,p½ fuEu izdkj gS %& Sec.2. Definitions - (RVAT Act, 2003) (36) "sale price" means the amount paid or payable to a dealer as consideration for the sale of any goods less any sum allowed by way of any kind of discount or rebate according to the practice normally prevailing in the trade, but inclusive of any statutory levy or any sum charged for anything done by the dealer in respect of the goods or services rendered at the time of or before the delivery thereof, except the tax imposed under this Act;

Explanation III. - Where according to the terms of a contract, the cost of freight and other expenses in respect of the transportation of goods are incurred by the dealer for or on behalf of the buyer, such cost of freight and other expenses shall not be included in the sale price, if charged separately in the invoice;

Sec.2. Definitions - (CST Act, 1956)

(h) "sale price" means the amount payable to a dealer as consideration for the sale of any goods, less any sum allowed as cash discount according to the practice normally prevailing in the trade, but inclusive of any

(3 of 4) [STR-282/2018]

sum charged for anything done by the dealer in respect of the goods at the time of or before the delivery thereof other than the cost of freight or delivery or the cost of installation in cases where such cost is separately charged."

5. As per respondent's counsel provisions of Section 2(36) of

the RVAT Act, 2003 and Section 2(h) of CST Act, 1956 defines sale

price, which specifies that if freight cost is separately charged in

the invoice and not included in the sale price, the same will not be

included in the assessable value. He further submits that

judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is not

applicable in the present facts and circumstances.

6. On consideration of the said arguments advanced by the

petitioner as well as respondent and on scanning of revision

petition, we are of the view that as contained in para 11 of the

impugned order specific finding has been given that

freight/transport cost was separately reflected in the invoices on

actual expenditure. No extra consideration was received by the

respondent on account of cost of freight and therefore, the same

is in conformity with the provisions of Section 2(36) and Section

2(h) of RVAT Act, 2003 and CST Act, 1956 respectively and will

not form part of assessable value. The judgment of Hon'ble Apex

Court in India Meters Ltd. (supra) relied upon by revenue

wherein it was held that, freight cost will form part of sale price, is

distinguishable on following counts:-

(i) The provisions of RVAT Act, 2003 and CST Act, 1956 are

not pari materia to the provisions of Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax

Act, 1959.

(ii) In that matter the goods in question were electric

meters and were supplied to the Electricity Board and the delivery

was not ex-factory.

(4 of 4) [STR-282/2018]

(iii) Both the appellate authorities have concurrently held on

the basis of invoices, books of accounts and records that freight

cost/transport cost was separately reflected in the invoices.

7. On account of the said reasons we are of the view that no

interference is called for in the present revision petition. The same

is hereby dismissed.

                                    (SAMEER JAIN),J                                                (AKIL KURESHI),CJ

                                   Arun/19









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)