- (1.) A. P. SINGH, J. This bunch of sales tax revisions filed under section 11 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act are connected with each other and relate to the State and Central sales tax liabilities of the applicant in different assessment years, namely, 1980-81, 1981-82, 1983-84 and 1984-85 and involve a common question of law which obviously justify their disposal by a common order with S. T. R. No. 816 of 1993 relating to the assessment year 1984-85 (Central) as the leading case.
(2.) THE question of law which arises for decision in all these cases is squarely covered by an earlier division Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in State of A. P. v. Ranka Cables Pvt. Ltd. [1990] 78 STC 111. THE question is "whether the amount of excise duty initially paid by the manufacturer but subsequently refundable to him by the Government, which although included in bill sent to the purchaser is liable to be included in his taxable turnover although the said amount of excise duty has neither been paid by the purchaser nor is payable by him under the contract entered between him and the assesses. " The Andhra Pradesh High Court on identical facts and law speaking through honourable Mr. Justice B. P. Jeevan Reddy, erstwhile Chief Justice of this Court and presently a puisne Judge of the apex Court of the land answering the question in the negative held that excise duty which is neither paid nor payable by the buyer cannot be included in the taxable turnover of the assessee. The learned Judges while coming to the above conclusion took into consideration the definition of "turnover" in the States Sales Tax Act (sic) and "sale price" in the Central Sales Tax Act. In brief, the facts of the case may be stated as follows M/s. Indian Aluminium Cables Pvt. Ltd. , 7/1, G. T. Road, Ghaziabad, which is a registered public limited company under the Companies Act 1956 is engaged in the manufacture and sale of ACSR/aac, AAAC conductors and is registered as dealer both under the U. P. and Central Sales Tax Acts. Certain projects happened to be financed by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (for short, "the IBRD") and International Development Association (IDA ). The requisite funds were provided both by the IBRD and IDA in hard (foreign) currency and supplies to the recipients were to be made on the basis of global tenders. In case any Indian party succeeded in getting the tender as per the scheme sponsored by the Central Government the supplies by the manufacturers to the parties within the country were to be treated as export for the purposes of extension of facilities to the exporters. The Government of India, Ministry of Foreign Trade vide Circular dated January 7, 1970 addressed to the Secretary, Engineering Export Promotion Council, Calcutta, also extended same facilities to the suppliers on the basis of deemed export, which are normally admissible to the actual export, one such facility was the facility of cash assistance by way of reimbursement of the amount covered by the excise duty paid for the articles which are subject-matter of supplies by him to the aided projects by the IBRD and IDA.
(3.) APPLICANT being successful tenderer in the global tenders floated for making supplies of conductors received orders for supplies of the conductors (popularly known in the trading world as cables) to M/s. Punjab State Electricity Board, Haryana State Electricity Board and others. In the bills it raised to the parties it included the amount of excise duty in the gross liability of the purchaser but the said amount was then deducted on the ground that its refund was to be claimed back from the Central Government by JCCIDE. The net amount thus payable by the purchaser as shown in the bill was minus the amount paid by the supplier by way of excise duty. The applicant filed his return before the Sales Tax Officer disclosing his turnover on the net amount of the bills so raised by him. The turnover so disclosed by the applicant was not accepted by the sales tax authorities who insisted that since, as per the bill, the amount of excise duty was shown in the value of the goods, it was liable for inclusion for arriving at the amount of turnover of the assessee as the said amount of excise duty was payable by the assessee as per the bill raised. It is immaterial whether the said amount of the excise duty is ultimately paid by the purchaser or the assessee or a third person on his behalf.;