STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. S MURUGAIYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above three revisions not only involve identical issues for consideration but have been disposed of also together by the tribunal below. Submissions have also been made before us in common and consequently dealt with together.

(2.) THE respondents-assessee are dealers in salt and the levy that is the subject-matter of dispute in these revisions relates to the one under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. So far as the respondent-assessee in T. C. No. 223 of 1983 is concerned, the levy under the Central Sales Tax Act relates to the assessment year 1979-80 and after giving due notice the assessing officer determined the total and taxable turnover for the said assessment year at Rs. 9, 62, 692 and Rs. 4, 22, 500 respectively taxable at 10 per cent. So far as T. C. No. 224 of 1983 is concerned, the respondent-assessee, a dealer in salt, was assessed for the year 1979-80 on a total and taxable turnover at Rs. 1, 57, 469 and Rs. 57, 845 respectively taxable at 10 per cent.

(3.) PER contra, Mr. C. Venkataraman learned counsel appearing for the respondent/assessees contended that in view of the decision of a Full Bench of this Court reported in State of Tamil Nadu v. V. V. Vanniaperumal & Co. the assessees could not be subjected to levy of tax in respect of the gunny bags used for selling the salt since the exemption granted in respect of the sale of the commodity would enure to the rescue of the assessees. According to the learned counsel, what was sold by the respective assessees was a bag of salt and consequently in the light of the opinion expressed by the Full Bench in para 6 of its judgment the price of salt must be taken to be the price of a bag of salt and since the salt itself is exempt there is no scope for levying tax on the bag of gunny alone by dividing separately the components consisting of the commodity and the gunny which constituted a sale. The learned counsel for the assessee also relied upon the decision in Raj Sheel v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Aysha hosiery Factory (P) Ltd. in support of his submission. 7a. W e have carefully considered the submission of the learned counsel appearing on either side in the light of the decisions relevant for our consideration. We are unable to approve the findings of the Tribunal in setting aside the assessment against the assessees in these cases. As noticed earlier there is no controversy over the fact that the salt was sold packed in gunnies and the price charged or received therefor was for the commodity packed and sold and no charge or price of gunnies was exhibited or shown separately in the bills. The issue relating to the taxability of the packing material was decided by the Full Bench of this Court in the decision reported in State of Tamil Nadu v. V. V. Vanniaperumal & Co. It was held by the Full Bench in the context of sale of oil that the bargain of sale was to be considered to be for a tin of oil and the goods gold were composite goods and even the fact that the price of the oil and the tin was charged separately in the bills was immaterial and the packing charges were deductible only when the packing was done subsequent to the sale and not otherwise. Again in the decision reported in A. R. Manickam Chettiar & Sons v. State of Tamil Nadu (1992) 2 MTCR 6 a Division Bench of this Court, while taking into account the full Bench judgment referred to supra as well as two other decisions of the apex Court and another decision of this Court, considered the levy of tax on the turnover relating to the sale value of gunny bags used for selling rice and paddy and expressed the view that when what was sold was not merely goods as such, but, the sale of goods along with the packing material the gunny bags used and the price relating to the gunnies was liable to be included in the taxable turnover and subjected to tax. The view taken by the Tribunal to the contrary that there was no sale of gunny bags as such but the sale was of the salt packed in gunnies for a consolidated price and, therefore, the levy cannot be sustained cannot be approved by us in the light of the decisions referred to supra.