SAWATRAM RAMPRASAD MILLS CO LTD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first ground relates to a sum of Rs. 4,752 representing the sale price of motor lorries the departmental officers have included in the applicant company's turnover. Its learned counsel relies on the Board's decision in Mohanlal Nathani v. The State ([1952] 3 S.T.C. 305) in claiming exemption in respect of this amount. The general principal laid down in that case was further examined by a Division Bench in another case, Onkarmal Jodhraj Agarwal v. The State ([1952] 3 S.T.C. 313), and the position now is that exemption cannot be claimed unless the second-hand or used goods sold are help to have no relation whatever with any of the businesses for which the assessee was registered or was liable to be registered as a dealer under the Act. In Mohanlal Nathani's case clearly the motor cars sold had no connection with any of his businesses. In Onkarmal Agarwal's case the motor trucks did have some connection with one of the businesses in which he was engaged; but that was not a business for which he was liable to be registered. In the case before us, admittedly the vehicles were used for the transport of goods manufactured at the assessee's mills. They are therefore, part of the equipment required for the business for which it has been registered and the price for which they were sold has been rightly included in the turnover.

(2.) SIMILAR considerations apply to the sale price of certain building material and tools, the inclusion of which in the turnover is in order.

(3.) TWO more ground have not been pressed seriously. The first is regarding the sale price of goods sold at the assessee's Amravati branch shop. That branch shop is part of the assessee's concern and the sale price of goods sold in it cannot be excluded from the turnover. To understand the second, the explanation offered is this. In view of the Textile Control Orders, the assessee could not sell its goods to its normal customers. It was required to sell them to the nominees of the Governments of different provinces. To compensate the normal customers for their loss of business, the assessee used to charge an extra three per cent. to the new vendees - which extra amount was later passed on to the normal customers. The claim is that this extra three per cent. should not have been included in the turnover. The analogy here is that of amounts charged to the customer in the name of sales tax, dharmada, etc. The Board has already help that such amounts, no matter how called and no matter how subsequently disposed of, from part of the sale price, as defined in Section 2(h) and cannot escape inclusion in the turnover. The claim made in this behalf cannot be allowed.