Tamil Nadu Spun Pipe Industries vs The State of Tamilnadu

K. Raviraja Pandian, J.—The appellant assessee is a registered dealer on the file of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Pollachi (Rural)

both under the State Act as well as Central Act, dealing in cement pipes. The assessee sells cement pipes to various customers. The assessee

collected freight charges separately in the invoice. According to Section 2(h) of the Central Act, the sale price means the amount payable to a

dealer for the sale of any goods other than cost of freight or delivery charges, in cases where it is separately charged. So the assessee claimed

deduction of freight charges from the taxable turnover. However, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of deduction for the reason that

without the delivery of goods at the work spot or at the factory site the assessee cannot sell the cement pipes. So, it is a part of the sale price u/s

2(h) of the Central Act, and levied tax on freight charges.

The assessee filed an appeal against that order before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who by a common order, allowed the appeal on

the premise that the freight charges was collected separately and hence it does not come under the purview of the sale price.

The Joint Commissioner, on perusal of the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, has found that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner

was not justified in accepting the contentions of the assessee, deleting the assessment made including the freight charges in the taxable turnover and

issued a show cause notice as to why the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner should not be revised and after hearing the objection,

ultimately confirmed the show cause notice by a reason of the order impugned. The correctness of the same is put in issue before this Court in this

appeal.

Time has been granted on several occasions for the Counsel for the appellant at request for getting instructions. However, the learned Counsel

for the assessee is not able to say anything except saying that he has no instruction to proceed further.

We are of the view that the issue involved in the present appeal i.e., whether the freight charges would form part of the sale price was

considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Ramco Cement Distribution Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 88 STC 151,

wherein after taking into consideration of the Cement Control Order, the Supreme Court has held that the freight charges would form part of the

sale price. The decision of the Supreme Court squarely covers the issue on hand.

Hence, following the decision cited supra and as the Counsel is not able to putforth his argument on behalf of the appellant, the appeal is

dismissed.