Milap Chandra Jain, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the assessee Under Section 15, Rajasthan Sales -tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter to be called 'the Rajasthan Act') against the order of the learned member, Rajasthan Sales -tax Tribunal, Ajmer dated July 6,1988 by which he has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes Department, Udaipur dated February 4,1988, confirming the assessment order levying tax on the freight charges and imposing penalty and interest thereon. The facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition may be summarised thus.
(2.) ON December 17, 1986, the business premises of the petitioner was surveyed. It was noticed that the amounts of freight recovered from the buyers were not included in the taxable turn over. After giving notice to the petitioner and hearing it, assessment order Under Section 9, Central Sales -tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be called 'the Central Act') read with Section 7 -B of the Rajasthan Act was passed for the assessment years 1986 -87 and 1987 -88. Penalty Under Section 16(1) (e) and interest Under Section 11 -B of the Rajasthan Act were also imposed. First appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Udaipur and second appeal before the Rajasthan Sales -tax Tribunal were filed by the assessee and they were dismissed as said above. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the assessee -petitioner that the findings of the learned lower authorities that the amounts recovered as freight charges by the assessee from its buyers formed parts of the sale price are against the terms and conditions of the contract which took place in between the assessee and its buyers and also against the material on record. He further contended that these authorities did not take into consideration that the freight was not charged simultaneously with the price of the goods supplied, it was separately charged and the definitions of 'sale -price' as given in Section 2(h) of the Central Act and Section 2(p) of the Rajasthan Act were not properly considered. He lastly contended that the learned member of the Tribunal has failed to correctly apply the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court given in Hindustan Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, (1979) 43 STC 13(RAJ).
(3.) IN reply, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the Revenue that the revision petition is not maintainable as no question of law is involved, there is a concurrent finding of fact of all the three authorities that freight was a component of the sale -price, contracts which took place in between the assessee -petitioner and its buyers have correctly been read, all documents on record have been taken into consideration and the law laid down in Hindustan Sugar Mills' case has correctly been applied.;