The Commissioner Commercial Tax vs. S/S J.R. Communication

Court No. - 1 Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 77 of 2016 Revisionist :- The Commissioner Commercial Tax Opposite Party :- S/S J.R. Communication Counsel for Revisionist :- Mr. A.C. Tripathi, Standing Counsel Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J. In view of office report dated 10.12.2021, the service of notice upon opposite party is deemed to be sufficient. Case is called. Neither anybody appears nor any request for adjournment is made out on behalf of opposite party. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 19.11.2015 passed by Commercial Tax Tribunal, Moradabad in Second Appeal No. 85 of 2015 (A.Y. 2008-09) in which the following question of law has been raised:- "(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Commercial Tax Tribunal was legally justified in not treating the credit notes of Rs. 30,72,999/30 as a part of taxable turnover received by the assessee as compensation for sale on lesser amount as a valuable consideration for sale price?" Learned Standing Counsel submits that the opposite party has sold the handsets below the purchase price and has admitted the balance amount from M/s. T.T.S.L. He further submits that in terms of the direction of M/s. T.T.S.L. the handsets was sold at the discounted price. He further submits that sim cards and recharge coupons were given in lieu thereof and same form part of the sale price of hand sets but the Tribunal has without considering the same allowed the second appeal, which is bad. He prays for allowing the revision. After hearing learned Standing Counsel, the Court has perused the records. Admittedly, while passing the assessment order, specific finding was recorded by the assessing authority that the handset was sold on the direction of M/s T.T.S.L. and in lieu thereof sim cards and recharge coupons were given, therefore the said amount of recharge and value of sim cards were also credited in the books of account of the opposite party towards the sale price. Once this fact has been noticed that the amount has been received which form part of the sale price, the Tribunal was not justified in diverting the issue that there was no difference of input tax credit if goods sold at a lower price.

Clause 2 (ad) of UP VAT Act refers the "sale price" which shows any amount payable to a dealer as consideration for the sale of any goods, less any sum allowed as cash discount according to the practice normally prevailing in the trade. In the case in hand, the opposite party has never averred that the goods were sold as prevailing trade practice, therefore, the difference of amount as sale consideration of hand sets below the purchase price are liable to be added in the taxable turnover. In view of above, the revision is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The assessment order is restored. The question of law is answered accordingly. Order Date :- 21.4.2022 Rahul Dwivedi/- Allahabad