P.K.Jain, J. - (1.) In all these four revisions the common controversy involved is whether the freight charges said to have been charged separately could be treated as part of the turnover. The revisions are, therefore, decided by a common judgment.
(2.) The revisionist is a manufacturer of cement and in the assessment year under consideration various quantities of cements were sold. The goods were sold f.o.r. destination. The assessee's claim was, however, that railway freight which included the price of the goods was charged separately. The revisionist was not liable to tax on the turnover of freight charges. In all the assessment years it is submitted that the cement was supplied by the revisionist to various parties and price was f.o.r. destination but the contract of sale was not f.o.r. destination. Hence the amount of freight charged separately was liable to be excluded from the taxable turnover. On behalf of the assessee reliance was placed on a decision reported in [1979] 43 STC 476 (All) 1978 UPTC 653 (U.P. State Cement Corporation Ltd., Churk, Mirzapur v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, (U.P.). The Tribunal, however, did not accept the contention of the dealer and relying upon a decision reported in [1979] 43 STC 13 (SC) ; 1979 UPTC 37 (Hindustan Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan) held that in view of the Cement Control Orders freight charges were the part of the sale price and therefore, could not be excluded from the taxable turnover. Another controversy relates to liability of the revisionist for payment of interest. The dealer has, therefore, filed the present revisions.
(3.) Shri Bharat Ji Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revisionist and Shri S.P. Kesharwani, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the revenue have been heard at length.;