SAKTHI ENGINEERING CO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main question in these tax revision cases is whether sales tax can be levied on the excise duty included in the earlier part of the bill, but which was deducted at the end of the bill showing the balance as the amount payable by the customer. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the excise duty was excluded from the final billed amount as it was not payable by a customer and therefore did not form part of the turnover assessable to sales tax. Counsel for the petitioner states that under the terms of the sale, the customer did not agree to pay the excise duty because it was to be reimbursed by the Central Government. He relies on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in State of A.P. v. Ranka Cables Pvt. Ltd. [1990] 78 STC 111 wherein also similar transactions were involved and it was held that excise duty did not form part of taxable turnover as it was not payable by the customer.

(2.) The facts of these cases are similar to the facts in Ranka Cables cases [1990] 78 STC 111. From the case record of that case, we find that the actual term in one of the contracts entered into by the assessee in that case was "no excise duty will be payable by the Board since all payments to the excise department to be reimbursed by supplementary cash assistance". Learned counsel for the petitioner produced a typical contract entered into by the assessee in these cases wherein the term relating to price was similar and provided as follows : "The unit ex-factory price freight to destination railway station/stores and transit insurance and for destination railway station/stores are indicated below. Sales tax, if any, and applicable will be paid extra at actual. As the excise duty is reimbursable by Government of India, it shall not be paid by the Board and the contractor should claim the same directly from the Government."

(3.) Therefore, in these cases also it has to be held that excise duty did not form part of the taxable turnover as it was not payable by the customer Board and that the Tribunal erred in including it in the taxable turnover. In the circumstances, following the earlier decision of this Court in the case of State of A.P. v. Ranka Cables Pvt. Ltd. [1990] 78 STC 111, we have to allow these tax revision cases.