- (1.) THIS revision, at the instance of the assessee, is directed against the order dated August 12, 1994 of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Madras-104 (for short "tribunal") and made in T. A. No. 531 of 1992 relating to the assessment year 1986-87 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Act 74 of 1956) (for short "csta" ).
(2.) THE assessee-Tvl. Greaves Chitram Limited, having their place of business at 38, Main Road, Royapuram, Madras-13 is coming within the jurisdiction of the Commercial Tax Officer, Royapuram assessment circle. The assessee-dealers reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 3, 97, 97, 938. 93 and Rs. 2, 97, 35, 987. 39 respectively as per the return in form-I for the assessment year 1986-87 under CSTA. Accounts were called for and checked by this assessing officer, before ever the order of assessment was made. In the process of checking accounts, the assessing officer found that the exemption claimed in respect of transport charges of Rs. 2, 28, 836 was not in order and hence disallowed the exemption so claimed. He further found that the levy of rate of tax at 10 per cent should be made instead of at four per cent on a turnover of Rs. 17, 288 inasmuch as the assessee-dealers had not produced the necessary and requisite "c" forms for availing the concessional rate of taxation. The assessing officer also levied a penalty of rs. 34, 325, representing 150 per cent of the tax due under the salient provisions adumbrated under section 9 (2a) of CSTA read with section 12 (5) (iii)of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (for short, "tngsta" ). The aggrieved assessee-dealers preferred an appeal in a. P.-C. S. T. No. 62/88 before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT)-I Madras (for short "aac" ). The said AAC sustained the order of the assessing officer in disallowing the exemption on a turnover of Rs. 2, 28, 836 and also the levy of tax made upon a turnover of Rs. 17, 288 at 10 per cent, in the absence of production of "c" forms on the said turnover. He however, reduced the penalty imposed upon the assessee-dealers by the assessing officer to 50 per cent from 150 per cent, i. e. , to say from Rs. 34, 325 to Rs. 13, 730. The assessee-dealers further filed an appeal before the Tribunal, as stated above. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the relevant materials available in the file and of course, after hearing arguments of learned counsel appearing on either side, dismissed the appeal, giving rise to the present action-T. C. (R) No. 432 of 1995. Challenge in this action, as revealed from the grounds taken is relatable only to includibility of the transport charges in a sum of rs. 2, 28, 836 in the sale price, making the said charges liable to tax at the appropriate rate and the penalty as reduced by AAC quantified in a sum of Rs. 13, 730 and no challenge is made as respects the imposition of tax at 10 per cent on a turnover of Rs. 17, 288.
(3.) FROM the pith and substance of the submissions of Mr. N. Inbarajan, learned counsel appearing for the assessee and Mr. R. Ravi Raja pandian, learned Special Government Pleader, representing the Revenue, the one and only question that crops up for consideration is as to whether the order of the Tribunal, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, sustaining the order of AAC pertaining to the includibility of the transport charges in a sum of Rs. 2, 28, 836 in the taxable turnover exigible to tax at the appropriate rate and reduction of penalty to 50 per cent in a quantified sum of Rs. 13, 730 for filing incomplete and incorrect return is sustainable in law " During the course of arguments, the relevant file containing the invoices and purchase orders had been produced before us for our perusal and consideration. We have sifted certain purchase orders and also invoices. In the process of such sifting, we are able to discern from the purchase orders, that the assessee-dealers agreed to effect delivery of the goods at the place of the buyer. What was further agreed by the assessee-dealers was that the freight charges will be pre-paid by them.>From certain invoices we have perused, we are also able to discern that from the price of the goods, a discount at three per cent had been deducted and that apart, excise duty paid at ten per cent and Central sales tax paid at four per cent against "c" form had been included, besides adding the transport charges in the sale price of the goods supplied. Axiomatic a proposition of law it is, that purchase orders and sale invoices cannot by themselves determine the terms and conditions of the contract entered into between the parties-seller, and buyer. The contents of such documents, however, may give some sort of a clue as to the nature of the transaction, in the absence of an agreement on contract entered into between the parties. If the contents of such documents did not reveal any sort of a clue as to the nature of the transaction entered into between the parties, it is well-nigh not possible, in the absence of evidence aliunde, to determine the nature and character of the transaction entered into between the parties. ;