Madras High Court
Tvl.Sakthi Sugars Limited vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 6 December, 2019
Author: V.K
Bench: Vineet Kothari, R.Suresh Kumar
Judgt. dt. 6.12.19 in T.C.55/2019, etc.
Sakthi Sugars Ltd v. State of TN
1/28
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 6.12.2019
CORAM
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
Tax Case Nos.55, 60, 61, 64, 66 and 72, of 2019
Tvl.Sakthi Sugars Limited,
180, Race Course Road,
Coimbatore 641 018. Appellant
Vs.
The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by the Deputy Commissioner(CT)
Coimbatore. Respondent
Tax Cases filed under Section 38 of the TNGST Act, 1959 against
the order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional
Bench), Coimbatore dated 1.7.2013 made in CTA Nos.316, 332, 195,
315, 194 and 140 of 2002.
For Appellant : Mr.M.P.Senthilkumar
For Respondent : Mr.Mohammed Shaffiq
Special Government Pleader
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Delivered by DR.VINEET KOTHARI,J) These Tax Cases have been filed by the Assessee M/s.Sakthi Sugars Limited, aggrieved by the common order passed by the learned Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 1.7.2013 holding that freight http://www.judis.nic.in Judgt. dt. 6.12.19 in T.C.55/2019, etc. Sakthi Sugars Ltd v. State of TN 2/28 charges or delivery charges paid by the Sugar Mills, Assessee to the Lorry Owners for getting the sugar cane from the fields of the sugar cane growers to the factory gate is to be included in the total purchase price liable for purchase tax under the TNGST Act because the Sellers/Agriculturists are unregistered dealers under the said Act.
2. The controversy is no longer res integra as this very controversy came to be decided by a Full Bench of this court in the case of Chengalvarayan Co-operative Sugar Mills Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu ((1997) 105 STC 497(Mad)) which came to be affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of E.I.D. Parry (I) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes ((2000) 2 SCC 321) and later on followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ponni Sugars (Erode) Ltd. v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer ((2005) 13 SCC 102.
3. The relevant portions of the above decisions are quoted below for ready reference:-
In the case of EID Parry (I) Limited ((2000) 2 SCC 321):
"In support of this last submission not only the relevant provisions under the Act but the decision of this Court in Andhra Sugars Ltd. v. A.P. State, [1968] 1 SCR 705, was also relied upon. Apparently, the two http://www.judis.nic.in Judgt. dt. 6.12.19 in T.C.55/2019, etc. Sakthi Sugars Ltd v. State of TN 3/28 agreements-one agreement in respect of planting subsidy and the other agreement for the sale of sugarcane appear to be independent but on a close scrutiny it can be noticed that they constitute one single transaction. In their petitions filed before the High Court the appellants have stated that the planting or varietal subsidy is by way of incentive to the cane grower. It is given to motivate the cane grower to grow sugarcane and subsequently sell the same to the sugar factory. Thus the reason why the appellants had given planting subsidy was to see that the cane grower plant the desired and improved variety of sugarcane and that too in the months suggested by the appellants so as to ensure stagger supply of sugarcane as per the crushing schedule. The object of the planting subsidy was to obtain the desired variety and quality of sugarcane at the time required by the appellants. It is also significant to note that as a matter of fact the planting subsidy was given by the appellants to the cane growers at the time of delivery of sugarcane by them. Though the http://www.judis.nic.in Judgt. dt. 6.12.19 in T.C.55/2019, etc. Sakthi Sugars Ltd v. State of TN 4/28 appellants had described the payments by way of planting subsidy as deferred payments that cannot conceal the real nature of the transaction between the appellants and the cane growers. The planting subsidy was given by the appellants to the cane growers not by way of agrarian reform or a social welfare measure. The appellants had given planting subsidy as purchasers of sugarcane and as a part of the consideration for which the sugarcane was ultimately purchased by them. As rightly pointed out by the Madras High Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. National Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., (1992) 86 STC 22 giving of planting subsidy earlier and supply of sugarcane later were closely linked. The planting subsidy was relatable to the supply of sugarcane. If die whole deal between the appellants and the cane growers is examined they really constitute one contract of sale. Therefore, the sums paid by the appellant as planting subsidy to the cane grower were rightly treated as a part of the sale price and included in the taxable turnover of the appellants http://www.judis.nic.in Judgt. dt. 6.12.19 in T.C.55/2019, etc. Sakthi Sugars Ltd v. State of TN 5/28 for the purpose of assessing the purchase tax liability.
For the same reasons we hold that the
transport subsidy was a part of the
consideration for which sugarcane was sold by the sugarcane growers to the appellants. Though the agreements between the parties provided for delivery by the sugarcane growers at the factory gate and though the transport charges paid by the appellants were not to the sugarcane growers but to third party lorry owners, they were made for securing regular supply of sugarcane as per the requirements. Though payments were made at the instance of Government of Tamil Nadu they also became a part of the implied agreement between the appellants and the sugarcane growers. They were not post-sale expenses. Those amounts were paid to ensure scheduled delivery of sugarcane. The sale of sugarcane became complete only thereafter. Those payments can be regarded either as payments made on behalf of the sugarcane growers or payments made in modification or variation of the http://www.judis.nic.in Judgt. dt. 6.12.19 in T.C.55/2019, etc. Sakthi Sugars Ltd v. State of TN 6/28 earlier agreements entered into by the sugarcane growers for selling sugarcane. In either case they could legitimately be regarded as the components of the sale price as the sellers would have otherwise included those amounts in the sale price."
In the case of Ponni Sugars ((2005) 13 SCC 102:
"8. Clause (6) of the agreement did not say that the sale was to take place in the field as contended by the appellant. It merely provided for the method of sale. This is also clear from the conduct of the parties. The appellant has admittedly included the transport charges up to 40 km. from the mill within the purchase price and has admittedly paid tax thereon. If the sale took place at the field and transportation charges did not have any connection with the cane growers, there was no need either to include the transport charges from the field upto the 40 km mark in the purchase price or to expressly provide that the transportation charges would be payable by the vendor. Besides the very use of the word "subsidy" in http://www.judis.nic.in Judgt. dt. 6.12.19 in T.C.55/2019, etc. Sakthi Sugars Ltd v. State of TN 7/28 the directive dated 12.9.1985 which was payable on delivery at the factory gate would also support the view that the transport charges were otherwise bearable by the cane growers.
9. The Full Bench of the Madras High Court was called upon to resolve a dispute between conflicting decisions of the High Court inter alia as to whether transport subsidies were includible in the purchase turnover of the sugar mills which were purchasing sugarcane under the Tamil Nadu General Sales tax Act, 1959 (referred to hereafter as the Act) in Chengalvarayan Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. V. State of Tamil Nadu, ((1997) 105 STC 497 (Mad)). The Court while affirming the view expressed in Kallakurichi Co operative Sugar Mills Ltd.
vs. State of Tamil Nadu ((1985) 60 STC 113 (Mad.)) and overruling the decision in State of Tamil Nadu v. Madurantakam Cooperative Sugar Mills ((1976) 38 STC 73 (Mad.)) said: (STC p.560, para 58) "(I) if subsidy -- whatever name or nomenclature, it may assume and whether http://www.judis.nic.in Judgt. dt. 6.12.19 in T.C.55/2019, etc. Sakthi Sugars Ltd v. State of TN 8/28 paid or payable prior to or subsequent to the entering into contract of sale -- is linked to the supply of sugarcane, such subsidy and expenses incurred for the transportation of the sugarcane to the factory site -- whether incurred by the grower initially and paid by the sugar mills subsequently or incurred by the sugar mills and shown separately in the invoices -- by adopting whatever procedure reflecting those amounts in the accounts -- shall form part of the price includible in the purchase turnover as such transportation alone makes the passing of property in the sugarcane sold by the grower to the assessee Mills complete".
This view was affirmed by this Court in E.I.D. Parry case ((2000) 2 SCC 321). One of the questions which this Court had to consider was whether the transport subsidy paid by the sugar mills to third- party lorry-owners for transporting sugarcane http://www.judis.nic.in Judgt. dt. 6.12.19 in T.C.55/2019, etc. Sakthi Sugars Ltd v. State of TN 9/28 pursuant to the State Government's direction can be aggregated with the price of sugarcane and included in the turnover of the mills under the Act. This Court noted that in respect of sugarcane grown in reserved areas, the occupier of the factory is required to enter into an agreement with the sugarcane-grower to purchase sugarcane in the form prescribed under the Madras Sugar Factories Control Act, 1949 and the Rules framed thereunder. It was found that the prescribed form of agreement disclosed that sugarcane had to be delivered by the grower at the factory premises.
10. After considering earlier authorities, this Court upheld the view of the Full Bench of the Madras High Court and concluded: (SCC p.336 para 18) "18. What transpires from the above case- law is that the amounts paid by way of consideration by the purchaser to the seller of goods in pursuance of the contract of sale can legitimately be regarded as purchase price while calculating the turnover for the http://www.judis.nic.in Judgt. dt. 6.12.19 in T.C.55/2019, etc. Sakthi Sugars Ltd v. State of TN 10/28 purposes of sales tax legislation. What can legitimately be brought to sales tax or purchase tax is the aggregation of the consideration for the transfer of property. All the payments should have been made pursuant to the contract of sale and not dehors it. Any amount paid as ex gratia payment or as an advance cannot be the component of the purchase price and therefore cannot legitimately be included in the turnover of the purchasing dealer. Whether one of the components of the purchase price goes to the coffers of the seller or not will not cease to be so if it is necessary for completing the same. Thus the total amount of consideration for the purchase of goods would include the price strictly so called and also other amounts which are payable by the purchaser or which represent the expenses required for completing the sale as the seller would http://www.judis.nic.in Judgt. dt. 6.12.19 in T.C.55/2019, etc. Sakthi Sugars Ltd v. State of TN 11/28 ordinarily include all of them in the price at which he would sell his goods. But if the sale price is fixed statutorily then the only obligation of the purchaser under the agreement would be to pay that price only and no other amount can be included in the purchase price even if the same is paid by the purchaser to the seller.
(Emphasis supplied)
11. The appellant has relied on the last line of the quoted paragraph to contend that it showed that the statutory price fixed would be the only price includible in the taxable turnover of the purchasing sugar mill. This is not what the Court meant. In the preceding sentence it has been made clear that the total amount of consideration not only included the price but also other amounts which represent the expenses required for competing the sale. This is clear from the paragraph 21 of the judgment where this Court said: (SCC p 338) http://www.judis.nic.in Judgt. dt. 6.12.19 in T.C.55/2019, etc. Sakthi Sugars Ltd v. State of TN 12/28 "For the same reasons we hold that the transport subsidy was a part of the consideration for which sugarcane was sold by the sugarcane-growers to the appellants. Though the agreements between the parties provided for delivery by the sugarcane- growers at the factory gate and though the transport charges paid by the appellants were not to the sugarcane-growers but to third-party lorry-owners, they were made for securing regular supply of sugarcane as per the requirements. Though payments were made at the instance of the Government of Tamil Nadu they also became a part of the implied agreement between the appellants and the sugarcane-
growers. They were not post-sale expenses. Those amounts were paid to ensure scheduled delivery of sugarcane. The sale of sugarcane became complete only http://www.judis.nic.in Judgt. dt. 6.12.19 in T.C.55/2019, etc. Sakthi Sugars Ltd v. State of TN 13/28 thereafter. Those payments can be regarded either as payments made on behalf of the sugarcane-growers or payments made in modification or variation of the earlier agreements entered into by the sugarcane- growers for selling sugarcane. In either case they could legitimately be regarded as the components of the sale price as the sellers would have otherwise included those amounts in the sale price." (Emphasis added). It is of significance that this view was expressed despite the fact that the State Government's directive was not incorporated in that particular agreement for purchase of sugarcane. The principles would therefore be applicable a fortiori to the present case where the directive formed part of the agreement. The issue raised by the appellant before us has thus been answered in the negative by this Court in E.I.D. Parry((2000) 2 SCC 321) which view we respectfully adopt."
4. The learned Tribunal, in the order impugned before us, has http://www.judis.nic.in Judgt. dt. 6.12.19 in T.C.55/2019, etc. Sakthi Sugars Ltd v. State of TN 14/28 taken a similar view with the following observation:-
"The dealer-appellants are sugar mills and manufacturers of sugar. They are governed by the Madras Sugar Factories Control Act, 1949 and the Rules framed thereunder and the Sugar Cane (Control) Order, 1966. Under the Madras Sugar Factories Control Act, 1949, an area was declared to be an area reserved for a sugar factory for a specified crushing season and before every planting season the sugarcane grower in the reserved area was to offer to the sugar mills a specified quantity of sugarcane grown by him, "at inspection and weighment at the factory". On such offer being made the sugar factory was to enter into an agreement with the sugarcane grower in the prescribed form for purchase of all the sugarcane offered by the grower . The Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 fixed the price for sugarcane delivered to factory at the gate of the factory. The sugar mill used to provide incentive to sugarcane growers as subsidy for earlier planting of particular variety of seed. It is called planting http://www.judis.nic.in Judgt. dt. 6.12.19 in T.C.55/2019, etc. Sakthi Sugars Ltd v. State of TN 15/28 subsidy. The dealer-appellants had also paid planting subsidy to their ryots as incentive and they did not include these amounts in their Returns. The grower of sugarcane had to bear the transport charges for 40 km/30 km as the case may be and the sugar mill under administrative instructions of the Government paid the excess transport charges for the distance beyond 40 km/30 km. This is called transport subsidy. The dealer-appellants had also paid such transport subsidy to their ryots and the dealer- appellants did not include these amounts in the purchase turnover in their Returns. Apart from the above, the dealer-appellants had also claimed exemption on the transport charges paid to the third party lorry owners for the transport of sugarcane from the field of ryots to the factory premises. The dealer-appellants deducted such transport charges from the statutory 5-A price and claimed exemption of tax from purchase turnover. Sugarcane is taxable at the point of purchase. On check of accounts, the Assessing Authority made levy of http://www.judis.nic.in Judgt. dt. 6.12.19 in T.C.55/2019, etc. Sakthi Sugars Ltd v. State of TN 16/28 tax on the planting subsidy, transport subsidy and also on the transport charges paid to third party lorry owners. Aggrieved of the orders of the Assessing Authority, the dealer/Appellants had preferred first appeal before the first appellate authority, who after hearing the case and perusal of records confirmed the levies after detailed discussion and by following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of E.I.D. Parry(I) Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes reported in 117 STC 457. Aggrieved of the orders of the first appellate authority, the dealer-appellants preferred these nine appeals disputing the turnovers detailed in the above said para, At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the dealer-appellants stated that he is not pressing the issue related to planting subsidy. However, in respect of levy of tax on transport charges paid to third party lorry owners, by producing the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in Tax Case Nos.1742, 1738 and 1740 of 2008 dated 19.8.2010 rendered in dealer-appellant's http://www.judis.nic.in Judgt. dt. 6.12.19 in T.C.55/2019, etc. Sakthi Sugars Ltd v. State of TN 17/28 own case argued that charges have been as per the terms of the agreement between the cane grower and the dealer-appellants and that the same cannot be included in the taxable turnover. Apart from this, the learned counsel had argued that the dealer- appellants had taken the sugarcane from the field of ryots and then only transported the sugarcane by arranging lorries on their own. We have gone through the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras produced by the learned counsel. A careful reading of the same revealed the fact that the disputed assessment years involved in the above cases are 1975-76 and 1976-77. In that order, the High Court of Madras had approved the order of this Tribunal passed in CTA Nos.82 and 84/79 dated 26.4.1980. In the above said order, this Tribunal, by following the case law reported in 38 STC 238 had deleted the freight charges paid to third party lorry owners. In the above said case (The State of Tamil Nadu vs. The Maduranthakam Co-operative Sugar Mills), the Hon'ble High Court of Madras on http://www.judis.nic.in Judgt. dt. 6.12.19 in T.C.55/2019, etc. Sakthi Sugars Ltd v. State of TN 18/28 17.2.1976 held that the transport charges paid by the sugar mill to third party lorry owners for transporting the sugarcane to the factory site was not to be included in the taxable turnover of the sugar mill.
... ... ...
11. In the light of the above catena of judicial decisions, we have considered the contention of the learned counsel that the Hon'ble High Court of Madras itself approved the findings of this Tribunal that the transport charges paid to third party lorry owners is not includible in purchase turnover of sugarcane in Tax Case Nos.1742, 1739 and 1740 of 2008 dated 19.8.2010. In this regard, it is to be noted that the assessment years involved are 1975-
76 and 1976-77. Actually, this Tribunal had passed the above order on 26.41980 by following the case law reported in 38 STC 238 (Madurantakam Co- operative Sugar Mills case) which was rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras on 17.2.1976. Subsequently the same Hon'ble Madras High Court http://www.judis.nic.in Judgt. dt. 6.12.19 in T.C.55/2019, etc. Sakthi Sugars Ltd v. State of TN 19/28 on 4.1.1984 in the Kallakurichi Co-operative Sugar Mills Limited case reported in 60 STC 113, held that the contractual obligation of the sugarcane growers for delivering the sugarcane at the mill or factory premises was not departed from or varied even in practice. Further, the Hon'ble High Court has held that transport charges paid by the sugar mills to third party lorry owners initially and subsequent deduction of same could not be treated as post-purchase expenses. In subsequent case laws also, the Hon'ble Madras High Court has taken the same view and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has also affirmed the same as discussed above.
12. With the above observation and understanding, we have gone into the details of the case on hand. As far as the transport charges paid to third party lorry owners, the dealer- appellant sugar factory claimed deduction from total 5-A price to be paid to sugarcane growers. Further, the dealer-appellants Sugar Mills entered into agreement with the sugarcane growers as per http://www.judis.nic.in Judgt. dt. 6.12.19 in T.C.55/2019, etc. Sakthi Sugars Ltd v. State of TN 20/28 Appendix-5 of the Madras Sugar Factory Control Rules, 1949. As per clause 5 of the agreement, the sugarcane growers had to deliver the sugarcane at the mill gate of the dealer-appellants. Thus there was stipulation under the agreement that the sugarcane growers had to deliver the sugarcane at the mill gate of the dealer-appellants. This contractual obligation for delivery of the sugarcane at the mill gate had not been departed from or varied. The method adopted for transporting sugarcane had been devised only to enable the sugarcane growers to arrange for the speedy transport of sugarcane to the mill. Above all, it is seen from the assessment records that after paying transport charges to third party lorry owners, the dealer-respondents had deducted such transport charges from the statutory price to be paid as per 5-A price of Sugar Control Order, 1966. Then, they had claimed exemption on such amount with the claim that such payments are not includible in the purchase price of sugar. Thus, it is clear that the transport charges paid to third party http://www.judis.nic.in Judgt. dt. 6.12.19 in T.C.55/2019, etc. Sakthi Sugars Ltd v. State of TN 21/28 owners were deducted from statutory cane price and therefore the claim of dealer-appellants that transport charges paid to third party lorry owners are not to be included to the purchase price is not acceptable. Hence, the reliance of learned Counsel on the Tax Case Nos.1742, 1739 and 1740 of 2008 dated 19.8.2010 is not acceptable since the same was delivered by the Hon'ble High Court by approving the order of this Tribunal, which was actually rendered by relying on the earlier case law reported in 38 STC 238. Subsequently, the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras reported in 38 STC 238 was reversed. Further, the dealer-appellants had not raised any objection regarding transport and planting subsidy. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and case laws relied on, we are of the considered view that the planting subsidy, transport subsidy and transport charges paid to third party lorry owners are to be included to the purchase price of sugarcane and therefore we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned http://www.judis.nic.in Judgt. dt. 6.12.19 in T.C.55/2019, etc. Sakthi Sugars Ltd v. State of TN 22/28 first appellate authority sustaining the assessment on the above payments.
13. In this regard, it is to be noted that in respect of assessment year 1988-89 (CTA No.140/02), the learned first appellate authority had directed the Assessing Authority to assess the turnover of Rs.1,01,82,689.46 and Rs.87,156.46 on which exemption claimed under heading transport charge paid to third party lorry owners. In pursuance of the order of the learned Appellate Deputy Commissioner, the Assessing Authority issued a notice to the dealer-appellants proposing levy of tax on the turnover of Rs.1,02,69,845/- which is filed at page Nos.685 to 689 of assessment file. But it is not known whether the Assessing Authority made levy of tax on the above turnover. Since, we confirm the levy of tax on the above three charges paid as pre- purchase expenses of sugarcane, we direct the Assessing Authority to consider the above notice also and to pass appropriate orders.
14. The next issue involved is levy of penalty http://www.judis.nic.in Judgt. dt. 6.12.19 in T.C.55/2019, etc. Sakthi Sugars Ltd v. State of TN 23/28 made by the Assessing Authority for the assessment year 1993-94 u/s. 12(3)(b) of the Act to the tune of Rs.63,34,292/- and sustained by the learned Appellate Joint Commissioner. The Assessing Authority had actually levied 50% of the balance of the tax assessed and tax paid as per the assessment order. On appeal, the learned Appellate Joint Commissioner had sustained the above penalty with the findings that transport charges paid to third party lorry owners and subsidies of transport and planting are part of the purchase price of sugarcane and liable to tax is declared by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in its judgement dated January 4, 1984 in the case of Kallakurichi Sugar Mills case reporter in 60 STC 113 and subsequently on July 15, 1991 in the case of Perambalur Sugar Mills Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 86 STC 17. Further, the learned Appellate Joint Commissioner has recorded that the dealer-appellants deliberately remained silent without paying any tax even though they would well aware of the decision reported in 117 STC 457 in http://www.judis.nic.in Judgt. dt. 6.12.19 in T.C.55/2019, etc. Sakthi Sugars Ltd v. State of TN 24/28 the case of E.I.D. Parry (I) Limited case, in which, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has confirmed the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras reported in 105 STC 497 (Chengalvarayan Co-operative Sugar Mills Limited case). The dealer-appellants have contended that they had acted bonafide and their conduct was not contumacious of guilt that they still in bonafide belief that the facts are distinguishable from the case decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
15. We have considered the order of the learned Appellate Joint Commissioner and the contention of the dealer-appellants. As far as the case on hand is concerned, it is an admitted fact that every turnover is found in the accounts. It is submitted by them that they have not paid the tax due with the bonafide belief that the above charges are not includible to the purchase price of the sugarcane. We find that dealer-appellants were in bonafide belief from the fact that the dealer- appellants disputed the levy of tax on the above http://www.judis.nic.in Judgt. dt. 6.12.19 in T.C.55/2019, etc. Sakthi Sugars Ltd v. State of TN 25/28 payments continuously. Further there is no suppression of any turnover out of accounts and there is only claim of exemption which was later denied and disallowed by the Assessing Authority. In of the above, we are of the considered view that no penalty can be levied for the difference of tax due arisen for non-payment of tax on which exemption claimed. However, the Assessing Authority is at liberty to levy interest u/s. 24(3) of the Act from the due date. With the above observation, we delete the penalty levied by the Assessing Authority to the tune of Rs.63,34,292/- in respect of the assessment year 1993-94.
In the result, the appeals in CTA Nos.138/02, 140/02, 141/02, 194/02, 195/02, 315/02 316/02 and 332/02 stand DISMISSED and the APPEAL in cta 58/09 stands MODIFIED with a direction to the Assessing Authority to impose interest u/s.24(3) of the Act from the due date for belated payment of tax due on the turnovers of Rs.59,11,518/-, Rs.1,86,97,256/- and Rs.3,25,88,998/-." http://www.judis.nic.in Judgt. dt. 6.12.19 in T.C.55/2019, etc. Sakthi Sugars Ltd v. State of TN 26/28
5. Since the view of the learned Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal is in consonance with the decision of the Full Bench of this Court and that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we have no reason to take a different view as there is no distinction on facts in the present case and the purchase of sugar cane by the Assessee Sugar Mill during the period in question also happened in a similar way and therefore, the mere bifurcation of prices in the invoices to the extent of transport charges or plantation subsidy will not materially affect the aforesaid prevailing legal position. Therefore, the Tribunal is justified in imposing the purchase tax on the Assessee Sugar Mill on the entire purchase price including the components of price for the sugar cane, plantation subsidy and transportation charges paid by the Assessee for transportation of sugar cane from the sugarcane fields to the factory premises of the Petitioner.
6. In view of the above, the Tax Cases filed by Assessee fail and they are devoid of merits and they are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, they are dismissed. No costs.
(V.K.,J.) (R.S.K.,J.)
6.12.2019
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
ssk.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Judgt. dt. 6.12.19 in T.C.55/2019, etc. Sakthi Sugars Ltd v. State of TN 27/28 To
1. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Deputy Commissioner(CT) Coimbatore.
2. Tvl.Sakthi Sugars Limited, 180, Race Course Road, Coimbatore 641 018.
3. Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Coimbatore http://www.judis.nic.in Judgt. dt. 6.12.19 in T.C.55/2019, etc. Sakthi Sugars Ltd v. State of TN 28/28 DR.VINEET KOTHARI, J.
and R.SURESH KUMAR, J ssk.
T.C. Nos.55, 60, 61, 64, 66 and 72, of 2019 6.12.2019.
http://www.judis.nic.in