PETITIONER:
MC DOWELL & COMPANY LTD. ETC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, VII CIRCLE, HYDERABAD ETC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT25/10/1976
BENCH:
SINGH, JASWANT
KHANNA, HANS RAJ
CITATION:
1977 AIR 1459 1977 SCR (1) 914
1977 SCC (1) 441
ACT
Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957--Excise and
countervailing duty paid by the buyers directly into the
Treasury--Neither the invoice nor books of the assessee
(manufacturer) show the excise duty--Excise duty--If fails
under "any sums charged by the dealer" occurring in the
definition of "turnover".
HEADNOTE
Section 2(1)(s) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax
Act, defines ’turnover" to mean the total amount set out
in the bill of Sale as the consideration for the sale or
purchase of goods including any sums charged by the dealer
for anything done in respect of goods sold at the time of or
before the delivery of the goods.
The appellants in the first two sets of appeals are
manufacturers of Indian liquors. A buyer of Indian liquor
from the distilleries pays, in the first instance, the
excise duty in the Treasury and obtains a distillery pass
for the release of liquor. On presentation of the distill-
ery pass an invoice is prepared by the manufacturers showing
the price of liquor. Neither invoice. nor the account
books of the manufacturers show the excise duty paid by the
purchasers.
Under the system in vogue in the second set of appeals,
the appellant who is the owner of a bonded warehouse pre-
pares a bill for the liquor required by the purchaser who
pays the countervailing duty in the Treasury in his own name
and obtains a pass from the excise authorities for the
removal of the liquor from the warehouse.
In both the, cases the Sales Tax Authorities included
the excise duty in the taxable turnover of the appellants.
The High, Court dismissed the writ petition of the appel-
lants impugning the orders of the Sales Tax Officers.
Allowing the appeal,
HELD: (1) Excise duty and countervailing duty paid
directly by the buyers for the Indian liquors did not con-
stitute a part of the turnovers or, the appellants.
[924 C]
(2) The phrase ’any sums charged by the dealer’ occur-
ring in the definition of ’turnover’ has to be understood in
its ordinary popular sense. So construed, it means what is
demanded and collected or received by the dealer. [923 B]
In the instant case the excise duty or the countervail-
ing duty has not been charged or received by the dealer but
has been charged by the excise authorities and deposited
directly by the buyers of the liquor in the State exchequer.
It cannot be said that the excise duty or the countervailing
duty was charged by the appellants.
In M/s. George Oakes (Private) Ltd. v. The State of
Madras & Ors., this Court held in relation to the definition
of turn-over that the aggregate amount includes the tax as
part of the price paid by the buyer; the amount goes into
the common till of the dealer till ’he pays the tax; it is
the money which he keeps using for his business till he pays
the tax; it is the money which he keeps using for his busi-
ness till he pays it over to Government; it becomes a part
of the circulating capital of the tradesman and is turned
over in his business. Secondly the price paid by the pur-
chaser was not so much money for the cause turnover
means the amount of money which is turned over in the busi-
ness. [923 E-G]
915
In the instant case the excise and the countervailing duties
did not go into the common tills of the appellants and did
not become a part of their circulating capital. The Sales
tax authorities were not competent to include in the turn-
overs of the appellants the excise duty and the countervail-
ing duty which was not charged by them but was charged by
and. paid directly to the excise authorities by the buyers
of the liquors. [924 A]
A. V. Fernandez v. The State of Kerala [1957] S.C.R. 837
followed.
R.C. Jail v. Union of India [1962] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 436, Sea
Customs ACT [1964] 3 S.C.R. 787, A B. Abdul Kadir & Ors. v.
State of Kerala [1976] 3 S.C.R. 219, Kalyani Stores v. The
State of Orissa & Ors. [1966] 1 S.C.R. 865 & M/s Mohan
Megkin Brewaries Ltd. v. Excise & TaxatiOn Commisisoner,
Chandigarh & Ors. [1976] 3 S.C.C. 421 referred to.
Messrs George Oakes (Private) Ltd. v. The State of
Madras & Ors. (122 S.T.C. 476) and (13 S.T.C. 98) referred
to and distinguished.
The Government of Andhra (now Andhra Pradesh) v. East
India Commercial Co. Ltd. (8 S.T.C. 114) distinguished.
JUDGMENT
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 248-251
of 1976.
(Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order
dated 28-11-1975 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ
Petitions Nos. 1195-1198/75).
CIVIL APPEALS Nos. 934-936 of 1976.
(Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order
dated 28-11-1975 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ
Petitions Nos. 3931, 3944 and 4029/75).
CIVIL APPEALS No. 693 of 1976.
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order
dated 28-11-1975 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ
Petition No. 6790/74).
Soli Sorabji and K.J. John for the Appellant (CAs 248-
251/76).
A. Subba Rao for the Appellant (CAs. 934-936/76).
Babul Reddy and K.J. John for the Appellant (CA. 693/76).
Niren De, Attorney General for India, P.P. Rao, D.V.
Sastry and T.V.S.N. Chari for the Respondents (in CAs. 248-
251/76 and CAs. 934-936/76).
T.V.S.N. Chari for the Respondent (In CA No. 693/76).
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
JASWANT SINGH, J.--This batch of appeals by special
leave which are directed against three separate judgments
of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad dismissing
three sets of writ petitions Nos. 1195 to 1198 of 1975,3931,
3944 and 4929 of 1975 and 6790 of 1974 filed by the. appel-
lants to challenge certain orders of the sales tax authori-
ties made in respect of re-determination of their’ turnover
for certain years under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax
Act,
916
1957 (hereinafter referred to as ’the Act’) shah be disposed
of by this judgment, as they raise a common question as to
whether the excise duty deposited directly in a State treas-
ury or a sub-treasury by the purchasers of the Indian-made
foreign liquor called ’Indian liquor’ before removing the
said liquor from a distillery and the countervailing duty
remitted directly to a State Treasury or a sub-treasury by
the purchasers of the aforesaid specie of liquor before
removing it from a bonded warehouse can properly be said to
form part of the turnover of .he manufacturer and of the
owner of the bonded warehouse respectively and as such
liable to sales tax under the Act.
The circumstances which have given rise to these appeals
lie in a short compass and may be briefly stated: The appel-
lants in the first two sets of Appeals Nos. 248 to 251 of
1976 and 934 to 936 of 1976 carry on the business of manu-
facture of ’Indian liquors’ in their distilleries estab-
lished in Andhra Pradesh under licences issued to them by
the Commissioner of Excise under the Andhra Pradesh Excise
Act, 1968 (Act 17 of 1968) and the rules made thereunder and
sell their finished products to the wholesale dealers who in
turn sell them to retail dealers. Under Rule 76 of the
Andhra Pradesh Distillery Rules, 1970 removal of any liquor
manufactured or stored without prepayment of the excise
duty specified in rule 6 is forbidden. Rule 77 of the Rules
prohibits issue of any liquor until its quantity and
strength have been duly verified by the distillery officer.
Rule 579 of the Rules authorises the distillery officer on
payment of excise duty to grant a distillery pass for remov-
al of the liquor fit for human consumption to the persons
specified in the said rule including a person holding a
licence for sale of liquor by wholesale or retail. Under
Rule 81 of the Rules, every application for a distillery
pass for removal of liquor has to be addressed in writing to
the distillery officer and has to be accompanied by a
challan in original for payment of excise duty therefor and
a general or special permit for the purpose of removal of
the liquor. Rule 82 of the Rules enjoins the distillery
officer upon tender of cash payment of excise duty by the
applicant to fill up the challan for presentation with the
cash at a treasury or sub-treasury of the district in which
the distillery is situate, and the applicant for distillery
pass to present the treasury receipt in token of his having
made payment of the duty where after the distillery officer
has to affix the said receipt to the counterfoil of form D-
6. Rule 83 of the Rules casts responsibility upon an
applicant for a distillery pass to, make a correct calcula-
tion and full payment of the excise duty upon the liquor
desired to be removed. Rule 84 of the Rules requires, the
distillery officer to issue the liquor under a pass in form
D-6 sending a duplicate’ thereof to the Excise Superintend-
ent of the district of destination on being satisfied that
the applicant is entitled under the Rules to remove the
liquor and has made payment of the requisite excise duty.
Accordingly every buyer of the Indian liquor from either of
the ’appellants’ distilleries during the years in ques-
tion obtained the distillery pass for release of the liquor
after making payment of the excise duty and presented the
same at the concerned distillery whereupon bill of sale or
invoice was prepared by the distillery showing the price of
the liquor. The said bill did not include
917
the excise duty paid by the buyer. The appellants’ books of
accounts also did not contain any reference regarding the
excise duty paid by the purchasers in the manner stated
above. The appellants paid the sales tax in full as per
final assessments made by the sales tax authorities under
the Act. it appears that after the completion of the
assessments of the sales tax under the Act for the years in
question, the Commercial Tax Officer felt that there had
been a failure to include the excise duty paid on the
aforesaid liquors vended by the appellants in their taxable
turnover. Accordingly, acting under the provisions of
section 14(1) of the Act, the Commercial Tax Officer issued
notices in February, 1975 to the appellants in the afore-
said first two sets of appeals to show cause why the assess-
ments be not reopened. Aggrieved by the said action of the
Commercial Tax Officer, the appellants filed writ petitions
Nos. 1195 to 1198 of 1975 and 3931, 3944 and 4929 of 1975 in
the High Court of Andhra Pradesh challenging the said
notices which, as already stated, were dismissed by the High
Court.
The appellant in Appeal No. 693 of 1976 is a firm which
is a licensed wholesale dealer in liquors and owner of a
bonded warehouse under the Andhra Pradesh Indian Liquor
(Storage in bond) Rules, 1969 where it stores or deposits
Indian Liquors such as whisky, brandy. gin etc. imported by
it from various States outside the State of Andhra Pradesh
without prepayment of countervailing duty or other fee and
issues the same according to the rules to its customers. The
modus operandi of the appellant is that it makes a bill for
the value of the liquor required by an intending purchaser,
who thereafter pays the requisite countervailing duty in his
own name and the Excise Officer incharge of the bonded
warehouse grants him a pass entitling him to remove the
liquor from the warehouse. According to the appellant, it
gets only the price of the liquor from its buyers. For the
assessment year 1971-72, the Commercial Tax Officer, Hydera-
bad III by its order dated August 16, 1972 included the
amount representing the countervailing duty paid by the
purchasers in respect of the Indian liquors in bond which
was not included in the bills of sale issued by the appel-
lant. On appeal, the Assistant Commissioner by its order
dated March 26, 1973 deleted from the turnover of the appel-
lant the item pertaining to the excise duty paid directly by
the purchasers holding that the excise duty so paid by the
purchasers did not, in the circumstances, form part of the
turnover of the appellant. Sometime thereafter, the Sales
Tax Appellate Tribunal by its order dated August 5, 1974
passed in T.A. Nos. 331 of 1973 and 5 of 1974 upheld the
assessment made under similar circumstances by the Commer-
cial Tax Officer, Vijayawada, on the turnover of M/s Shaw
Wallace & Co. Thereupon the Deputy Commissioner, Commer-
cial Taxes, Hyderabad by virtue of the power vested in him
under section 20 of the Act issued the impugned notice dated
October 9, 1974. to the appellant calling upon it to show
cause why the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner,
Commercial Taxes on March 26, 1973 should not be set aside
and the original assessment order of the Commercial Tax
Officer dated August 16, 1972 restored. The appellant
was also required to file objections and adduce evidence in
support thereof within 7 days from the date of receipt of
the impugned notice,
918
Aggrieved by the notice, the appellant flied a petition
being petition No. 6790 of 1974 before the High Court of
Andhra Pradesh. seeking issue of an appropriate writ, order
or direction declaring that the appellant was not liable
to pay sales tax on excise duty paid by the purchasers in
their own names and restraining the Deputy Commissioner,
Commercial Taxes, Hyderabad, respondent in the appeal from
taking further proceedings in pursuance Of the said notice.
The said petition having been dismissed, the appellant has,
as already stated, come up in appeal to this Court.
At the hearing of these appeals, Mr. Sorabji and the
other counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants have
assailed the aforesaid Judgments and orders of the High
Court by urging in the first instance that the view taken by
the High Court about the nature and character of excise duty
and countervailing duty is not correct. They have also after
trying in vain to argue for considerable length of time that
on the true construction of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act,
1968, the Andhra Pradesh Distillery Rules, 1970, the Andhra
Pradesh Foreign and Indian Liquor Rules, 1970 and the
Andhra Pradesh Indian Liquor (Storage in bond) Rules, 1969,
a manufacturer of Indian liquors and an owner of a bonded
warehouse are not primarily responsible for payment of the
excise duty or countervailing duty, as the case may be,
contended that a manufacturer and owner of the bonded ware-
house are not solely responsible for payment of the said
duties and a purchaser of the liquor who obtains a distill-
ery pass or a werehouse pass and transport permit is
also legally responsible for payment therefor and if he does
pay the duty, it is something which he does in discharge
his own statutory liability and not something which he does
for or on behalf or for the benefit of the manufacturer or
the owner of the bonded warehouse. They have alternative-
ly contended that on a true construction of the expression
’turnover’ as defined in section 2(1) (s) of the Act, the
determinative factor is the total amount set out in the
bill of sale as consideration for the sale of the liquor and
since the excise duty or the countervailing duty was direct-
ly paid by the purchasers to the excise authorities and did
not at all form part of the-consideration for the sale of
the said liquor as set out in the bills of sale, it was not
permissible for the sales tax authorities to assess the
turnover by roping therein something which was not set out
in the bills of sale as consideration for the sales. They
have lastly contended that in any event as the excise duty
or the countervailing duty was at no time charged by the
appellants for anything done in respect of the liquors sold
but was charged by the excise authorities before removal of
the liquors under the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 and
the rules made thereunder, it could not constitute a part of
the turnover and taxed under the Act.
Although some controversy was sought to be raised by
counsel for the appellants regarding the nature and charac-
ter of the excise duty and countervailing duty but as
rightly pointed out by the learned Attorney General, the
matter has been put beyond doubt by the decisions of this
Court. In R.C. Jail v. Union of India(I) after a review of
the authorities bearing on the matter, it was held by this
Court as follows :--
(1) [1962] supp. 3 S.C.R. 436.
918
’The excise duty is primarily a duty on the
production or manufacture of goods produced
or manufactured within the country. Subject
always to the legislative competence of the
taxing authority, the said tax can be levied
at a convenient stage so long as the character
of the impost is not lost. The method of
collection does not affect the essence of the
duty but only relates to the machinery of
collection for administrative convenience."
Again In re Sea Customs Act(1) it was ob-
served:
"The question with respect to excise duties
was considered by this Court in the case of
Amalgamated Coal fields Ltd. v. Union of India
(A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 1281). After considering
the previous decisions of the Federal Court In
re. The Central Provinces and Berar Sales of
Motor and Lubricant Taxation Act (1939 F.C.R.
18); The Province of Madras v. M/s Boddu
Paidanna (1942 F.C.R. 90) and of the Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council in Governor
General in Council v. Province of Madras (1945
F.C.R. 179), this Court observed as follows
at p. 1287:
"With great respect, we accept the
principles laid down by the said three deci-
sions in the matter of levy of an excise duty
and the machinery for collection thereof.
Excise duty is primarily a duty on the produc-
tion or manufacture of goods produced or
manufactured within the. country. It is an
indirect .duty which the manufacturer or
producer passes on to the ultimate consumer,
that is, ultimate incidence will always be on
the customer. Therefore, subject always to
the legislative competence of the taxing
authority, the said tax can be levied at a
convenient stage so long as the character of
the impost, that is, it is a duty on the
manufacture or production, is not lost. The
method of collection does not affect the
essence of the duty, but only relates to the
machinery of collection for administrative
convenience."
This will show that the taxable event
in the case of duties of excise is the
manufacture of goods and the duty is not
directly on the goods but on the manufacture
thereof. We may in this connection contrast
sales tax which is also imposed with reference
to goods sold, where the taxable event, is the
act of sale. Therefore, though both excise
duty and sales-tax are levied with reference
to goods, the two are very different imposes;
in one case the imposition is on the act of
manufacture or production while in the other
it is on the act of sale. In neither case
therefore can it be said that the excise duty
or sales tax is a tax directly on the goods
for in that event they will really become the
same tax. It would thus appear ’that duties of
excise partake of the nature of indirect taxes
as known to standard works on economics and
are to be distinguished from direct taxes like
taxes on property and income."
(1) [1964] 3 S.C.R. 787.
919
It is, therefore, clear that excise duty is a duty on
the production or manufacture of goods produced or manufac-
tured within the country though as observed by one of us
(Khanna, J.) in A.B. Abdul Kadir & Ors. v. State of
Kerala(1) laws are to be found which impose a duty of excise
at stages subsequent to the manufacture or production.
The position with regard to the nature and character of
countervailing duty has equally been made clear in a number
of decisions of this Court. In Kalyani Stores v. The
State of Orissa & Ors.(2) which was followed in M/s Mohan
Meakin Breweries Ltd. v. Excise & Taxation Commissioner,
Chandigarh & Ors. (2), Shah, J. (as he then was) observed:
"This brings us to the consideration of
the meaning of the expression "countervailing
duties" as used in Entry 51, List 1I of the
Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. The
expression "countervailing duties" has not
been defined in the Constitution or the Bihar
& Orissa Act 2 of 1915. We have, therefore,
to depend upon its etymological sense and the
context in which it has been used in Entry 51.
In its etymological sense, it means to coun-
ter-balance; to avail against with equal force
or virtue; to compensate for something or
serve as an equivalent of or substitute for:
see Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edn. 421.
This would suggest that a countervailing duty
is imposed for the purpose of counterbalancing
or to avail against something with equal force
or to compensate for something as an equiva-
lent. Entry 51 in List II of the Seventh
Schedule to the Constitution gives power to
the State Legislature to impose duties of
excise on alcoholic liquors for human consump-
tion where the goods are manufactured or
produced in the State. If also gives power to
levy countervailing duties at the same or
lower rates on similar goods manufactured or
produced elsewhere in India. The fact that
countervailing duties may be imposed at the
same or lower rates suggests that they are
meant to counterbalance the duties of excise
imposed on goods manufactured in the State.
They may be imposed at the same rate as excise
duties or at "a lower rate, presumably to
equalise the burden after taking into account
the cost of transport from the place of manu-
facture to the taxing State. It seems,
therefore, that countervailing duties are
meant to equalise the burden on alcoholic
liquors imported from outside the State and
the burden placed by excise duties on alcohol-
ic liquors manufactured or produced in the
State. If no alcoholic liquors similar to
those imported into the State are produced or
manufactured, the right to impose counter-
balancing duties of excise levied on the goods
manufactured in the State will not arise. It
may, therefore, be accepted that countervail-
ing duties can only be levied if similar goods
are actually produced or manufactured in the
State on which excise duties are being
levied."
(1) [1976] 3 s.c.c. 219.
(2) [1966] 1 S.C.R. 865.
(3) [1976] 3 S.C.C. 421.
921
Having seen that a provision can be inserted in the excise
law for collection of the excise duty at a stage subsequent
to the manufacture or production of the excisable article,
we shall now proceed to examine the main contentions raised
by counsel for the appellants. We have first to see as to
how far the contention of counsel for the appellants that
apart from a manufacturer of Indian liquors and an owner of
a bonded warehouse (who in our opinion cannot but be regard-
ed as primarily responsible for payment of excise duty and
countervailing duty respectively in view of sections 21, 28
& 65 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968, and rules 3, 4,
5, 6, 67 & 76 of the Andhra Pradesh Distillery Rules, 1970,
and condition No. 9 of the Distillery Licence granted under
rule 5 of these Rules; rules 5 & 10 of the Andhra Pradesh
Indian Liquor (Storage. in bond) Rules, 1969, conditions
Nos. 7 & 10 of the licence granted in form B.W. 1 under rule
5(2). the phraseology of the application for receipt of
liquor into the bounded warehouse prescribed by rule 9(2)
and the terms of the counterpart agreement required to be
executed by a licensee of an Indian liquor bonded warehouse
under rules 3(2) and 5(2) of these Rules) the buyers of the
said liquors are also liable under the law for payment of
the aforesaid duties can be sustained. For a proper deter-
mination of this question, it is necessary to recall the
provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Distillery Rules, 1970
which have been set out in the earlier part of this judg-
ment. The said rules particularly rules 79, 81, 82, 83 and
84 lend a good deal of support, in our opinion, to the
contention of counsel for the appellants and make every
intending buyer of the Indian liquor liable for payment of
the excise duty before obtaining the distillery pass and
lifting the quantity mentioned therein from 1he distillery.
Accordingly agreeing with counsel for the appellants we hold
that intending purchasers of the Indian liquors who seek to
obtain distillery passes are also legally responsible for
payment of the excise duty which is collected from them by
the authorities of the Excise Department.
The position in regard to the countervailing duty is
not,however dear though rule 10(1) of the Andhra Pradesh
Indian Liquor (Storage in bond) Rules, 1969 and rules 5(2)
and 17 of the Andhra Pradesh Foreign and Indian Liquor
Rules, 1970 enable the intending buyers of Indian liquors to
remove the same from a bonded warehouse on payment of the
said duty, to the excise authorities.
. This is not, however, sufficient to dispose of the
matter.The real and pivotal question that requires to be
determined is whether the excise duty or the countervailing
duty, as the case may be. paid directly to the excise
authorities of the State or deposited directly in the State
exchequer in respect of the Indian liquor by the buyers
thereof before removing it from any of the aforesaid dis-
tilleries or the warehouse can be said to form part of the
taxable turnover of the appellants as according to section 5
of the Act which is the charging section sales tax is
required to be paid by the appellants on their turnover of
the year. It will be useful at this stage to advert to the
definitions of the words ’turnover’ and ’sale’ as given in
clauses (s) and (n) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the
Act. Shorn of unnecessary details, these definitions run as
under:
922
"turnover" means the total amount set out in the bill of
sale (or if there is no bill of sale, the total amount charg
ed) as the consideration for the sale or purchase of goods
(whether such consideration be cash, deferred payment or
any other thing or value) including any sums charged by the
dealer for anything done in respect of goods sold at the
time of or before the delivery of the goods and any other
sums charged by the dealer, whatever be the description,name
or object thereof ......... . ...................
"sale" with all its grammatical varia-
tions and cognate expressions means every
transfer of the property in goods by one
person to another in the course of trade or
business, for cash, or for deferred payment,
or for any other valuable consideration.....
In the instant case, it is not disputed
that excise duty or countervailing duty paid
directly to the excise authorities by the
purchasers of Indian liquors before removal
thereof from the distilleries or the bonded
warehouse on the strength of the distillery
and warehouse passes was not included in the
bills of sale as the consideration for the
sales, but 1hat alone, according to the Attor-
ney General, is not determinative of the
matter. He has invited our attention to the
second part of the definition of the word
’turnover’ as set out above and has strenuous-
ly urged that as in addition to the price of
the liquor set out in the bills of sale as
consideration for the sales, other sums
charged by the dealer at the time of or before
the delivery of the goods also form part of
turnover, and according to the well estab-
lished canon of construction, a taxing stat-
ute has to be interpreted reasonably so that
there is no evasion of the tax, the phrase
’any sums charged by the dealer’ occurring in
the aforesaid definition of the word ’tur-
nover’ must be ’construed as meaning any item
of expense including the excise duty or the
countervailing duty to which the buyers were
put by the manufacturers of the liquors or the
owner of the bonded warehouse. We find our-
selves unable to accept the construction
sought to be put by him as it is opposed to
the plain meaning of the said phrase. It
will be advantageous here to refer to the
decisions of this Court in. A.V. Fernandez v.
The State of Kerala(1) where Bhagwati, J.
speaking for the Bench after quoting the
observations made by Lord Russell of Killowen
in Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Duke of
Westminster(2) which were approved by the
Privy Council in the Bank of Chettinad v.
Income Tax Commissioner(3) observed:
"It is no doubt true that in construing
fiscal statutes and determining the liability
of a subject to tax one must have regard to
the strict letter of the law and not merely to
the spirit of the statute or the substance of
the law. If the Revenue satisfies the Court
that the case fails strictly within the provi-
sions of the law, the subject can be taxed.
If, on the other hand, the case is not covered
within the four corners of the provisions of
the taxing statute, no tax can be
(1) [1957] S.C.R. 837. (2) [19361 A.C.I, 24.
(3) A.I.R. 1940 P.C. 183.
923
imposed by inference or by analogy or by
trying to probe into the intentions of the
legislature and by considering what was the
substance of the matter. We must of necessi-
ty, therefore, have regard to the actual
provisions of the Act and the rules made
thereunder before we can come to the conclu-
sion that the appellant was liable to assess-
ment as contended by the Sales Tax Authori-
ties."
Bearing in mind the principle set out in A.V. Fernan-
dez’s case (supra) the phrase ’any sums charged by the
dealer’ has to .be understood in its ordinary popular
sense. So construing the phrase, it means "what is demand-
ed and collected or received by the dealer." In the instant
cases, the excise duty or the countervailing duty has, as
already stated, not been charged or received by the dealer
but has been charged by the excise authorities and deposited
directly by the buyers of the liquor in the State exchequer.
It is, therefore, difficult to hold that excise duty or’
countervailing duty was charged by the appellants.
The reason for inclusion of tax or a duty in the turn-
over was explained in two decisions of this Court bearing
the same cause title viz. Messrs George Oakes (Private) Ltd.
v. The State of Madras & Ors. (12 S.T.C. 476) and (13
S.T.C. 98). In the first of these cases, it was observed
:--
"Under the definition of turnover the aggre-
gate amount for which goods are bought or
sold is taxable. This aggre gate amount
includes the tax as part of the price paid by
the buyer. The amount goes into the common
till of the dealer till he pays the tax.
It is money which he keeps using for his
business till he pays it over to Government.
Indeed, he may turn it over again and again
till he finally hands it to Government."
In the other decision, Hidayatullah, J. (as he
then was) said:
"In laws dealing with sales tax, turn-
over has, in England and America also, been
held to include the tax. The reason for such
inclusion is stated to be that the dealer who
realises the tax does not hand it over forth-
with to Government but keeps it with him, and
turns it over in his business before he parts
with it. Thus, the tax becomes,for the time
being, a part of the circulating capital of
the tradesman, and is turned over in his
business. Again, it was said that the price
paid by the purchaser was not so much money
for the article plus tax but a composite sum.
Therefore, in calculating the total turnover,
there is nothing wrong in treating the tax as
part of the turnover, because "turnover" means
the amount of money which is turned .over in
the business."
In the instant cases, the excise and countervailing
duties did not go into the common tills of the appellants
and did not become a part of their circulating capital. We
are, therefore, of the view that the 9 --1338SCI/76
924
Sales Tax authorities were not competent to include in the
turnovers of the appellants the excise duty and the counter-
vailing duty which was not charged by them but was closed by
and paid directly to the excise authorities by the buyers
of the liquors as stated above.
The Full Bench decision of the High Court of Andhra
Pradesh in The Government of Andhra (Now Andhra Pradesh) v.
East India Commercial Co. Ltd.(1) relied upon by the Revenue
is clearly distinguishable. In that case, it was the actual
collection of certain sums as dharamam or charity by the
dealer from the purchasers on the occasion of the sales that
made the learned Judges to hold that they constitute part of
the turnover. In Messrs George Oakes (Private) Ltd.’s case
(supra) also, the tax in question was collected by the
registered dealer.
We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the
excise duty and the countervailing duty paid directly by the
buyers of the Indian liquors as stated above did not consti-
tute a part of the turnovers of the appellants.
For the foregoing reasons, we allow the appeals and set
aside the impugned judgments and orders. In the circum-
stances of the case, we leave the parties to pay and bear
their own costs of these appeals.
P.B.R. Appeals al-
lowed.
(1) 8 S.T.C. 114.
925