State
of Punjab & Ors Vs. M/S Guranditta Mal Shauti
Prakash Etc [2004] Insc 373 (5 May 2004)
Cji
& G.P. Mathur.
(with
Civil Appeals Nos. 14736/1996, 14810-14816/1996) RAJENDRA BABU, CJI. :
In
this case the question raised for consideration is whether purchase tax can be
charged on the element of market fee on the basis that the same does not form
part of the turnover.
Writ
petitions filed by Respondents in the High Court have ended in their favour.
Hence these appeals by special leave.
Under
the Punjab General Sales Tax Act 'turnover' is defined to include "the
aggregate of the amounts of sales and purchase and parts of sales and purchases
actually made by any dealer during the given period less any sum allowed as
cash discount and trade discount according to ordinary trade practice, but does
not include any sum charged for anything done by the dealer in respect of the
goods at the time or or before delivery thereof".
Interpreting
this provision with reference to the Marketing Regulations, the High Court
noticed that the incidence of tax in the present cases is when the turnover
exceeds the taxable quantum, the buyer has to pay market fee as the appellants
are licensees within the market area; that such market fee is not paid by them
to the sellers; that therefore such amount of the market fee cannot be part of
the sale consideration; that the appellants were not required to show in their
turnover the amount of the market fee as part of the purchase price of such of
the agricultural produce purchased by them locally; that such market fee is not
to form part of the turnover for assessment or payment of purchase tax.
This
Court in Anand Swarup Mahesh Kumar vs. The Commissioner of Sales Tax, 1980 Vol.
46 Sales Tax Cases 477, had occasion to consider whether additional tax on
certain dealers levied on turnover of purchases mentioned in Section 3-D(I) of
the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 collected from purchases by
common agent can be included in the turnover of purchases. This Court explained
that there are four circumstances in which turnover could be included and they
are,
(i) if
the produce is sold through a commission agent, the commission agent may realise
the market fee from the purchaser and shall be liable to pay the same to the
committee;
(ii)
if the produce is purchased directly by a trader from a producer the trader
shall be liable to pay the market fee to the committee;
(iii) if
the produce is purchased by a trader from another trader, the trader selling
the produce may realise if from the purchaser and shall be liable to pay the
market fee to the committee, and
(iv) in
any other case of sale of such produce, the purchaser shall be liable to pay
the market fee to the committee.
The
Punjab Act, it is submitted, is different from the Act that was considered by
this Court in Anand Swarup Mahesh Kumar case and the High Court had not
properly examined the scope of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee Act.
Under
what circumstances the market fee is to be paid needs to be considered and once
it is held that the buyer has an obligation to pay the market fee and it is the
duty of the seller to deposit the market fee on behalf of the buyer and,
therefore, to realise it from the buyer, it is not the legal obligation of the
seller to pay market fee on such a transaction and thus the amount of market
fee cannot be treated as part of the sale consideration. It cannot be seriously
disputed that this was the position in law in the State of Punjab.
If the
law was not clear, it is open to the State to amend the law either with
reference to the Agricultural Produce Market Committee Act or the Sales Tax Act
because this Court in Anand Swarup Mahesh Kumar case has explained under what
circumstances the liability to pay market fee becomes part of the turnover.
When the finding of the High Court is that on examining the enactment in
question, there is no obligation on the part of the seller to pay the market
fee since it is the duty of the buyer to pay the same and seller can realise it
from the buyer, the conclusion thereof that there was no liability to pay sales
tax on the element of market fee is justified.
Therefore,
we find no merit in these appeals and the same shall stand dismissed.
Back