Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. We may notice the facts of T. R. C. No. 12 of 1977 as representative of the first batch of cases. The assessee, M/s. McDowell & Co., manufactures foreign liquor at Shertallai and sells the same both locally and by way of inter-State transactions. They are also dealers in spirits and empty bottles. The invoice-war statement of sales filed at the time of the hearing before the Sales Tax Officer disclosed a gross turnover of Rs. 7,36,058.79 under the Central Sales Tax Act for the year 1962-63. Besides sale of liquors, sale of bottles, sale of packing cases, etc., it included an amount of Rs. 80,238.80 described as "deposit on bottles". The Sales Tax Officer allowed the deduction in respect of this claim to the extent to which the assessee was able to prove the return of the bottles, viz., Rs. 18,614.24. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner found that realising the amounts described as deposits for the bottles, the company had charged a price for the bottles as part of the consideration for the sale of liquor and that the amounts so realised are really part of the goods sold. He was of the opinion that the customer was under no obligation to return the bottles and that the sums taken as deposits were not really such deposits but were an integral part of the commercial transaction of sale of liquor. On further appeal, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal noticed that there was no written contract. It referred to the copies of the bills produced which separately showed the amount realised by deposit of bottles. This is shown separately as security deposit for the return of the containers. Discussing the incidents of the transaction, the Tribunal found as a fact from the course of conduct and the attendant circumstances that the invoices showed the price of liquor, the excise duty and the sales tax to be collected from the customers but not the price of the containers ; secondly, that the amount of deposit on bottles was specifically shown in the invoices ; thirdly, that the credit notes; later issued, showed that the appellants were getting back the containers and returning the deposits; fourthly, that the fact of return of the bottles was sufficiently established by the exemption granted by the assessing officer in respect of the amounts shown to have been disbursed on the return of the bottles. These findings of fact by the Tribunal must be accepted in. these cases under revision before us. We proceed to examine the question of the assessability of the turnover on the said findings of fact.