STATE OF A P Vs. THOLASI PANDURANGAIAHCHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question that has been posed for determination is whether the market cess collected by the dealers within the meaning of section 12 of the A. P. (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Markets Act, 1966, can be said to form part of the taxable turnover for the purpose of levying sales tax. The Supreme Court, in similar circumstances, had an occasion to deal with, in a couple of decisions. The first one is reported in Anand Swarup Mahesh Kumar's case [1980] 46 STC 477 (SC); (1980) 4 SCC 451, wherein it is held :

(2.) ONCE again, the Supreme Court reiterated, while confirming the observations made in the aforesaid case, in Central Wines v. Special Commercial Tax Officer [1987] 65 STC 48, wherein it is held :

(3.) IT is, no doubt, true that whenever the buyer desires that the risk during transit should be covered and the seller recovers insurance charges from the buyers, such charges do not form part of the purchase price "has been approved by the Supreme Court. " But in the case on hand, this point has no nexus nor, if we may say so, has any relevance. Hence it is of little or no assistance to the respondent. In so far as the proposition that falls for determination in the case on hand it is fully covered by the decisions of the Supreme Court in Anand Swarup Mahesh Kumar v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1980] 46 STC 477; (1980) 4 SCC 451, and in the latest decision reported in Central Wines v. Special Commercial Tax Officer [1987] 65 STC 48. Their Lordships were categorical that the decision laid down in Anand Swarup Mahesh Kumar v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1980] 46 STC 477 (SC); (1980) 4 SCC 451, does not require any reconsideration. Hence, the market cess indisputably collected under statutory obligation in this case cannot, therefore, be said to form part of the taxable turnover. Hence, the Tax Revision Cases are dismissed in limine. Petitions dismissed.