Madras High Court
The State Of Madras, Represented By The ... vs Thiru Baliga Lighting Equipment (P.) ... on 10 July, 1968
Equivalent citations: (1969)2MLJ398
JUDGMENT K. Veeraswami, J.
1. The Tribunal finds that there were about 400 transactions effected by the company out of which only 14 customers asked for cover of the risk effected by the company in transit of the goods, and the charges incurred in that connection were recovered from The customers It also appears that the insurance charges were independent of the price and not included therein. That being the case, the insurance charges cannot part of the turnover of the dealer. Rule 6 which provides for exemption or deductions covers only cases where but for the deduction the relative amount cannot form of the turnover of the only cases where but for the deduction the relative amount would be part of the price. The rule does not cover a case in which the amount in question is not a part of price, for in that case no exemption is at all required. Our attention has been invited to the Explanation to the definition of turnover in the Act. But as we said , the insurance charges are incurred to cover the risk in transit of goods and we cannot view the expenditure as for something done in respect of the goods
2. The tax case is dismissed.