Case: D. C. Johar and Sons Private Limited Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Ernakulam, and Another

SHAH, AG. C.J.1. The facts relevant to the determination of the appeal in this case are identical with the facts in Dyer Meakin Breweries Ltd. v. State of Kerala (Civil Appeal No. 910 of 1968) ([1970] 26 S.T.C. 248 (S.C.)) except that the appellant-company is not a producer or a manufacturer of foreign liquors. It purchases goods in other States and transports them to its place of business at Ernakulam. The appellant-company made a claim for exemption of "freight and packing and delivery charges" in respect of which separate bills were made out when selling the goods at Ernakulam.2. Counsel for the appellants relied upon a decision of this court in support of his contention that freight and packing and delivery charges were an admissible deduction : Tungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, Kurnool ([1960] 11 S.T.C. 827 (S.C.)). But in that case the court did not decide the question as to the true effect of rule 5(1)(g) of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, 1939, of which the terms are the same as rule 9(1) of the Kerala Rules. The case was decided against the taxpayer on the ground that no separate bills were made out by the taxpayer and one of the conditions for the claim was not satisfied.3. There is no substance in the contention raised by counsel for the appellant that in authorising the levy of sales tax on transport charges which formed a component of the price for which the goods were sold, the State Legislature had trespassed upon the legislative field reserved to the Centre by List I, entry 89 - the power to levy taxes on railway fares and freights. The tax levied is not a tax on railway freight : it is a tax on turnover, that is, on the aggregate of sale price received by the dealer in respect of sale of goods. The fact that the price includes the expenditure incurred by the company for railway freight for transporting the goods from the factory site to its place of business does not make the tax imposed upon that component a tax on railway freight.

Decision reasoning: 0[ds]There is no substance in the contention raised by counsel for the appellant that in authorising the levy of sales tax on transport charges which formed a component of the price for which the goods were sold, the State Legislature had trespassed upon the legislative field reserved to the Centre by List I, entry 89the power to levy taxes on railway fares and freights. The tax levied is not a tax on railway freight : it is a tax on turnover, that is, on the aggregate of sale price received by the dealer in respect of sale of goods. The fact that the price includes the expenditure incurred by the company for railway freight for transporting the goods from the factory site to its place of business does not make the tax imposed upon that component a tax on railway freight.The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.