J. S. VERMA, C. J. - (1.) THIS revision under section 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 as amended by the Amendment Act, 1984 is against the order dated June 5, 1986 passed by the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal in a second appeal.
(2.) THE dealer had preferred the second appeal challenging the imposition of certain levies by the subordinate authorities. THE items which are under challenge in this revision alone need to be mentioned. THE dealer's contention having failed before the Tribunal the challenge is reiterated in this revision in respect of those items. THE first contention of the dealer is that the dealer being a textile manufacturer the sale of scrap and other spares by it was not exigible to tax since the business of the dealer did not ordinarily include this activity. This contention of the dealer has been rejected throughout. In my opinion, the dealer's contention on this basis is untenable, the point being concluded by the Supreme Court decision in the District Controller of Stores, Northern Railway, Jodhpur v. Assistant Commercial Taxation Officer [1976] 37 STC 423. That too was a case under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 and in view of the amended definition of "business" it was held that selling of unserviceable material and scrap, etc. , even though not the normal business activity of the business, it fall within the amended definition of "business" in the Act. This contention of the dealer is, therefore, rejected. The next contention in support of this revision is that interest levied under section 11-B of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 read with section 9 (2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 on delayed payment of tax is untenable. This point also stands concluded by a decision of the Supreme Court rejecting this contention. The decision is Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Taxes Officer, Kota [1981] 48 STC 466 (SC ). Accordingly, this contention too is rejected. The next contention in support of this revision is that penalty levied under section 7-AA of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 read with section 9 (2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for the delay in submission of returns is untenable. This contention too has to be rejected on the basis of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Taxes Officer [1981] 48 STC 466. The last contention in support of this revision is that charges on account of hundis, stamps, banking and dharmada, etc. , could not be included in the "sale price" for computing the taxable turnover of the dealer. I find that the necessary facts on the basis of which this point arises relating to the charges under these heads are neither mentioned by the Tribunal in its order nor considered in that light. It is obvious that the actual nature of transactions and the circumstances in which these charges were incurred by the dealer as well as the basis on which exclusion of that amount from the "sale price" was claimed have to be considered for deciding whether the same can be included within the definition of "sale price" under the Act and consequently can form the taxable turnover of the dealer. This not having been done by the Tribunal, the same has to be considered and decided afresh with advertence to the above observations in the light of the decisions on this point. It is only to this extent that the Tribunal's order is set aside requiring a fresh decision by the Tribunal on this point. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed only to the extent indicated above and the Tribunal is directed to decide the question regarding charges relating to hundis, stamps, banking and dharmada etc. , afresh in accordance with law. No costs. Petition partly allowed. . ;