The High Court · 2025

:SRl SWAROOP OORILLA( SPL Sc FOR CT) REPRESENTED BY SRI CHAITANYA KIRAN T. ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER Counsel forthe Respondent : SRI TEJ PRAKASH TOSHNIWAL The Court made the followang :JUDGMENT I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA TAx REVISION CASE NO.2L2 of 2OO8 ORDER: (per Hon'ble Srl Justice P.Sam Koshy/ This Ta-x Revision Case is preferred lty the State challenging the order, dated 11.04.2008, in TA.No.1035 of 200 I passed by the learned Sales Tax Appeliate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (for short, 'the STA1").

2. Heard Sri T.Chaitanya Kiran, learrred Assistant Government Pleader representing Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for State and Sri Tej a Prakash Toshniwal, learned counsel appea:ing for the respondent.

3. Vid.e impwgned order, the appea-l of ttre assessee was allowed by the STAT holding that the c,:sl. of freight charges incurred would not be a component pert of the sale price.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleacter appearing for the State placed relialce upon the Judgernent of High j d \r - 2 P5K,]&NNR,1 Irevc 212 2008 Court of Allahabad io Hindustan SugoLr Mitls a' State of Rajasthant ' Whereas' the respondent-assessee reliarrce upon the judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh (DB) in the case of State ofAndhra Pradesh v. Bengal Coal ComPanY Limitedz' placed

5. A perusal of the record would go to show that in fact the STAT after duly considering the factuat matrix of tlle case, has decided ttre aJoresaid judgments duly cited on either side, but in the process' the STAT has relied upon the judgment rendered by jurisdictional High Court in Bengal Coal's cose (suPro)' a

6. To understand the issue more effectivelY and it Bengal having gone through the judgement Coal's case, it ts apProPriate and relevant paragraph Nos'5' 6 and 8 as under for ready reference: rendered to extract *5. We maA nou) notice cLatse (h) of section 2 of the CentraL Sales Tox Act: Sate pice' means the amount pagabte to a dealer as consideration for the sale of ang goods ress ang sum alloued as cash discount according to the practice normorg preuoiring in the tade, but inclusiue of ang sum clarged for angthing done bg the ' 1979 Taxmann com 103 (Allahaba '? 1970 Lawsuit (AP) 37 d) 1 PSK,J&NNR,] Itevc 212 2g)A dealer in respect of the goods at the time of or befo'e the deliuery thereof other than the cost of freight or deliuery or the cost of installation in cases u.there such cost i.s separotelg charged."

6. Ttre second port of the clause makes it cLeor tL,.at the cost of freight or deliuery of the goods at the time of or before the deliuery is not a component part of the "sale pn<:e". Therefore, the "sale pice" as defi.ned, means onlg the amounl paAable to a dealer as con-sideration for the saLe of goods excluding the cost of freight or deliuery of the goods at the time of or before the deliuery of the goods. Since admittedly, the deliuerl o-f the goods utas at Visakhapatnam agairct pagment, the cos'. of freight till the time of deliuery has to be exctuded from the col sklerotion for the sqle of the goods.

8. Clause (h) of section 2 of the Central Sales Tax tlct deals uith freight and handling charges pior to the stoge of deliuery and in this case, the expenditure incurred towards freight and handling charges tLas pior 'to deliuery in connection uiti't the sale in question. Therefore, the Tibunal uas ight in holding, that "sqle pice" does not include freight and handling cfutrges ond as such, the assessees are entitled to claim exemptiorL in. respect of this tumouer shotun as freigltt and handling chargcs 1'or the four assessment years in question. " I I 7 . We will find that the issue involved Ln the present Tax Rerrision' Case is squarely touching the quesition of law agitated by the revenue. Further, upon going through the judgment rendered in the case of Hirr.;dustrr.n Sugar Mills,s I I case, it would clea-rly reflect that the factual matix is entirely M ]L Trevc 212 2008 s-t\l PSK,]&NNR,J different and the STAT has rightly distinguishe d the two judgments.

8. Taking the said facts into consideration, we find that the judgment relied upon by the STAT in the case of the Bengal Coal's case (supra) is to be more appropriate and directly touching the issue involved in the present case.

9. Accordingly, no grounds were made out by this Bench calling interference of the impugned order dated ll.O4.2OO8 in T.A No.1O35 of 2001 passed by the Iearned Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra pradesh, Hyderabad. Hence, the Tax Revision Case is liable to be dismissed.

10. Accordingly, Tax Revision case is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Tax Revision Case shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// J_ SD/- K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR SECTI OF FICER To, 1 2 J 4 The Sales Tax appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad' SRI SWAROOP OORILLA( SPL SC FOR CT), [OPUC] One CC to SRI TEJ PRAKASH TOSHNIWAL' Advocate [OPUC] Two CD CoPies l'CSD/gh HIGH COURT DATED:2410612025 t k ,.) c () o '+ t 1 S rA /6- (:, - f ) I 0 S3 Pt AE o sC "t a\ JUDGMENT TREVC.No.2'12 of 2008 DISMISSING THE TAX REVISION CASE