COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX Vs. KOLSITE INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the Revenue as well as learned counsel for the respondent. This is a reference under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 ("the BST Act", for short) made by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai ("the Tribunal", for short) to seek the decision of this court on the following substantial questions of law:

(2.) THE respondent, M/s. Kolsite Industries, is a reseller in machinery and is duly registered under the BST Act as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ("the CST Act", for short). The respondent was assessed by the assessing authority and vide assessment orders passed under the BST Act and the CST Act for the period from July 1, 1982 to June 30, 1983 and from July 1, 1985 to June 30, 1986 raised dues of Rs. 28,397 and Rs. 55,302, respectively.

(3.) IN the second appeals, it was, inter alia, contended on behalf of the respondent that both, the lower authorities have committed an error in treating insurance charges as part of the sale price by imposing tax thereon. However, the Revenue strenuously argued that the insurance charges shall form part of the sale price and both the lower authorities are justified in imposing tax on the insurance charges charged by the respondent to the purchasers on machinery. After perusing the documentary evidence adduced by the respondent including the terms and conditions contained in the agreements between the respondent sellers and the purchasers of the machinery and the case law cited by both the sides, the Tribunal, contrary to its earlier view in the case of the very same respondent, by its judgment dated October 5, 1996, gave its finding in favour of the respondent -assessee by holding that the assessing authority has committed an error in treating the amount of insurance charges as part of the sale price and by levying tax thereon. The Tribunal also did not accept the submission advanced on behalf of the Revenue that the issue be referred to a Larger Bench, on the ground that no documentary evidence was tendered by the respondent in the previous case, whereas ample documentary evidence has been tendered by the respondent in the case in hand to enable the Tribunal to take a different view in the matter.