Holding

The sales tax component charged by the dealer is part of the consideration and is includable in turnover; the dealer does not act as an agent of the State.

Summary

The appellants, dealers under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, contended that the sales tax component collected from buyers—whether shown separately in the bill or collected via debit notes—should not be counted in their "turnover" for computing sales tax liability, arguing that the tax is not part of the consideration and that they act as agents of the State. The Supreme Court examined the definition of "turnover" in Section 2(s) of the Act and the statutory scheme, noting that the Act imposes no legal duty on dealers to collect tax nor on buyers to pay it, and that dealers are not remunerated as agents. It held that the tax component is part of the sale price and must be included in turnover, and that dealers do not act as agents of the State in collecting tax. The Court rejected the appellants' arguments and affirmed the High Court's view that the tax amount is includable in turnover. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed and the dealers were liable to pay the assessed sales tax with interest.

Issues considered

The sales tax component collected by a dealer from the buyer is whether includable in the dealer's "turnover" under Section 2(s) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957.
Whether a dealer, by collecting sales tax from the buyer, acts as an agent of the State for the purpose of the Act.

Legislation cited

Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957s. 2(s), s. 5, s. 5-A

Subjects

turnoversales taxconsiderationagentstatutory interpretationAndhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Actinclusion of tax in turnover

Judgment

CENTRAL WINES, HYDERABAD ETC.
A
v.
SPECIAL COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER ETC.

JANUARY 9, 1987

[M.P.THAKKAR AND K.N. SINGH, JJ.] B

i Andhra Pradesh General Sales .Tax Act, 1957. section 2(s)-:-
"Turnover"-Whether it includes sales tax charged from the buyer and
shown in the Bill, by virtue of the expression 'any other sum charged by
the dealer whatever be the description, name or object thereof' occur-
ring in the said definition in section 2(s) and as such the amount of Sales
Tax either shown in the Bill or by Debit Voucher is includible in the c
turnover for the purposes of computing the sales tax liability of
i· assessees.

In Andhra Pradesh, Sales tax is levied under the authority of
sections 5 and SA of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957 on the D
'turnover' of a dealer. The expression 'turnover' has been defined in
section 2(s) inter alia to include the total amount set out in the hill of sale
or the total amount charged as consideration for the sale or purchase of
goods whether such sales includes any other sum charged by the dealer
whatever he the description, name or object thereof. Whether or not
sales tax collected by the dealers from the buyers would fall under the E
inclusive part of aforesaid definition is the question raised in these
appeals. It has arisen in the context of two categories of cases, namely:

- (i) wherein the sales tax has been separately set out in the bill of
sale and is collected by the .seller at the time of sale imme-
diately after or at the time of delivery of the goods. F

(ii) wherein the sales tax is not mentioned in the bill at all but
simultaneously collected with the delivery of the goods sepa-
rately under debit notes whereby the exact amount of sales tax
due is collected from the purchaser by the seller but the said
amount is kept in the suspense account. G

The submissions urged by the appellants before the High Court in
~- their Writ Petitions were:

I. That where the amount is collected specifically as 'tax', it can-
not he deemed to he a part of the consideration for ttie sale of H

945
946 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 1 S.C.R.

the goods and as such it cannot form part of the turnover
A
within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Act.

2. Inasmuch as the Act does not prohibit the dealer to pass on the
sales tax component of the sale price to the purchaser' the
dealer should be deemed to be an agent, of the Government for
[3 collecting the sales tax amount.

The High Court repulsed the plea of the assessees that the amount
of sales tax so collected from the buyers was not includible in the
turnover for the purposes of computing the sales tax liability of the
assessees. The concerned assessees have approached the Supreme Court
C by way of the present group of appeals by Special Leave.

Dismissing the appeals, the Court,

HELD: 1.1 The sales tax component of the sale price charged by
the vendor to the vendee is not collected by him as an agent of the
D Revenue (State Government). [ 9531>-E]

l.2 Some of the salient features of the A.P. General Sales T8ll,
1957 are:-
·~.
( 1) There is no provision in the Act which imposes a legal obliga-
E tion on the vendor of the goods to recover sales tax on the
goods sold to the vendee. For instance the vendor is not pro-
hibited from selling the goods without recovering the sales tax
from the vendee. The seller may not charge or recover the
sales tax from the buyer. He will not be violating any. provi-
-
.on ~f the Act or incurring any penal consequence by doing
F so. In other words the collection of the sales l8ll from the
buyer is a matter of his choice. He may or may not do so. Ube
does not do so he does not expose himself to any penal conse-
quence or legal liability.

(2) There is no legal obligation imposed by the Act on the buyer of
G the goods to pay sales tax at the time of the purchase of the
goods. H the vendor does not insist on such payment and if the
buyer does not .pay the tax be does not violate any provision of
the law or incur any legal liability.

(3) There is no provision in the Act which casts any legal dnty on
H the ven~or to mention in the bill or the voucher is!med to the
buyer that sales tax has been recovered from the buyer. Nor
CENTRAL WINES v_ COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER 947

is there any obligation on him to show that sales tax is in·
eluded in the price charged or to specify the amount ·of sales A
tax separately in the bill or voucher.

(4) Nothing in the Act requires the dealer to set apart the amount
recovered from the vendee by way of sales tax. He is neither
bound to keep a separate account of the amount so recovered B
nor to keep it in a separate cash box. He can treat it as his own
money, keep it in his own cash box, and use it as if it were his
own property. If the amount is stolen or is misappropriated
by his employee it is he who loses his own money and it is not
the Revenue which has to bear the loss. .

-1- (5) His liability to pay sales tax is analogous to his liability to pay C
the Municipal taxes or the Income tax etc. The liability is to
pay from his own property and not from any property ear-
marked for that purpose from out of the coUection of tax made
from the buyers.
D
(6) The dealer is no doubt required to deposit along with sales tax
return periodicaUy the amount of tax due on the sales effected
by him. But that is merely a convenient mode of discharging
his liability at the intervals as enjoined by the Act. It is
neither linked nor dependent on recovery if any made by him
from the buyer (which he may or may 11ot make). E

- (7) The dealer is not paid any remuneration or reward for coUect-
ing the sales tax. If he was acting as an Agent, the State would
be obliged to pay him some remuneration or reward, for, the
State cannot oblige him to work as its-agent gratis. It would
amount to forced labour if it were otherwise. [95IC-H; 9S2A-D] F

The aforesaid factors, viewed cumulatively, make it evident that a
dealer who seUs the goods d_oes not act as an ·agent for the State in
coUecting the sales tax from the persons lo whom he seUs the goods. If
he was acting as an Agent he would be required to take reasonable care
of the sale proceeds as a bailee. He would also be required to set apart G
--''. the same without intermingling with his own money, for, he cannot use
the monies belonging to the State for his own private purposes. If the
intention or the legislature was lo make him an agent, the legislature
would have imposed penal liability on the vendor if he were not to
collect the taxes. He would be obliged to maintain separate accounts of
the collection made by him as also to treat the collections as the coUec- H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 1 S.C.R.

tions made.by the agent on behalf of the principal. [9521>-F]
A
2.1 The sales tax component included in the sale price is includi-
ble in making the aggregate for the purpose of the 'turnover' within the
meaning of section 2(s), even though it is recovered as a tax from the
purchaser and not as the price of the goods charged to the vendee. [953F]

B 2.2 Recovery of tax from the purchasers is not under a statutory
obligation, in the instant case. Even if therefore the bill or the voucher
issued to the purchaser indicates the amount of sales tax ooparately
what is collected by the vendor from the vendee is not tax but is merely a y..--
part of the sale price cha..-ged by the vendor to the vendee. So far as the 1
statute is concerned it does not cast any obligation on the purchaser of
the goods to pay any tax and therefore what is collected by the vendor
C from the vendee by way of consideration for passing the property in the
goods to the vendee is the price charged by him and not tax collected by
him from the purchaser. The amount of money which goes from the
pocket of the vendee to the pocket of the vendor as a condition or
consideration for passing of the property in the goods is thus. the sale
D price and not the tax. It is the amount, but for the payment of which,
the vendor would not transmit his title to the goods in favour of the
vendee, and not any amount paid by the vendee towards any tax liabi-
lity incurred by him on making the purchase of the goods. Nothing
would turn on whether the bill or voucher issued to the vendee is so
made out to show that the sales tax is. charged separately. If be does so
E be would be doing so only for the sake qf bis accounting purposes and
convenience. The consideration obtained by him from the vendee would
in the eye of law be the sale price regardless of what nomenclature is
given to a part of the price charged by him. [952F-H; 953A-E]
-
2.3 The amount includible in the turnover on the true interpreta-
F tion of the relevant provisions cannot become excludHlle merely by reasoo
of the accountancy device adopted b! the~ concerned. [956D-E]

Mis George Oakes (P) Ltd. v. State of Madras, [1961] 12 STC
476, followed.

G McDowel & Company v. Commercial Tax Officer, AIR 1977 SC
1459 and Anand Swarup Mahesh Kumar v. The Commissioner of Sales
Tax, [1980] 4SCC 451, distinguished.

Government of Andhra Pradesh v. East India Commercial Com-
pany Ltd., [1957] 8 STC 114 and State of Andrha Pradesh v. Bujranga
H Jute Mills Ltd., [ 1955] 6 STC 376, referred to.
CENTRAL WINES v. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER [THAKKAR, J.] 949

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1118 A
of 1981 etc.

From the Judgment and Order dated 17.11.1980 of the Andhra
Pradesh High Court in W.P. No. 5468 of 1979.
B
A. Subba R'lc for the Appellants.

Dr. Y.S. Chitate and T.V.S.N. Chari for the Respondents.

·y The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
c
THAKKAR, J. In a batch of Writ Petitions and T.R.C. cases
before the High Court the question raised in substance was formulated
asunder:-

"The question, therefore, that arises in both these cases, is
whether the amount collected by the seller from the buyer D
which comprises of the two components the actual sale
price and the sale tax is a part of the "turnover" and comes
within the expression "any other sum charged by the dealer
· whatever be the description, riame or object thereof''
occurring in the definition id Section 2(s) iof the Act. In the
former case it is shown expressly as sales tax and in the E
latter case it is shown in the form of debit notes. But in

- both the cases it is collected by the seller from the buyer at
the time of the sale or rather as a con_dition of sale."
l. Section 2(s) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act 1957 "turnover" means.
the total amount set out in the bill of sale or if there is no bill of sale, the total amount
charged as the consideration for the sale or purchase for the sale orpurchase of goods
F
, whether such consideration be cash, deferred payment or any other thing of value
including any sums charged by the dealer for anything done in respect of goods sold
at the time or before the delivery to the goods and any other sums charged by the
dealer, whatever, be the description, name, object thereof:
Provided that in the case of a sale by a peI'SQII whether by himself or through an agent
of agricultural or horticultural produc:e grown by himself or grown on any land in
which he has an interest whether as owner, usufructuary mortgage, tenant or
G
otherwise the amount of the consideration relating to such sale shall be excluded
from bis turnover when such produce is sold in the form in which it was produced,
without being subjected to any physical chemical or other process for being made fit
for consumption save mere cleaning grading or sorting.

xxxxxx H
x x x x x: x"
950 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1987] 1 S.C.R.

The High Court repulsed the plea of the assessees that the amount
,.,.
A of sales tax so collected from the buyers was not includible in the
turnover for the purposes of computing the sales tax liability of the
assessees. The concerned assessees have approached this Court by way
of the present group of appeals by Special Leave.

B Sales tax is levied under the authority of Section 5 and Section ~
5-A on the 'turnover' of a dealer. The expression 'turnover' has been
defined l>Y Section 2(s) inter alia to include the total amount set out in
the bill of sale or the total amount charged as consideration for the sale
or purchase of goods whether such sales includes any other sum
charged by the dealer whatever be the description, name or object
y6,
thereof. Whether or not sales tax collected by the dealers from the
c buyers would fail under the inclusive part of aforesaid definition is the 7'
question raised in these appeals. It has arisen in the context of two
categories of cases, namely:

(i) wherein the sales tax has been separately set out in. the bill of
D sale and is collected by the seller at the time of sale immediately
after or at the time of delivery of the goods.

(ii) wherein the sales tax is not mentioned in the bill at all but
simultaneously collected with the delivery of the goOds separa-

E
tely under debit notes whereby the exact amount of sales tax due
is collected from the purchaser by the seller but the said amount ""
is kept in the suspense account.

The submissions which were unsuccessfully urged before the
High Court and are reiterated before us on behalf of the assessees are: '
-
'(
F l. That where the amount is collected specifically as 'tax', it
canpot be deemed to be a part of the consideration for the sale of
the goods and as such it cannot form part of the turnover within \
the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act.

2. Inasmuch as the Act does not prohibit the dealer to pass
G on the sales tax component of the sale price to the purchaser, the
dealer should be deemed to be an agent of the Government for
collecting·the sales tax amount. f.
In repelling the aforesaid contentions, strong reliance was placed
by the High Court on its full bench decision in Government of Andhra
H Pradesh v. East India Commercial Company Ltd., [1957] 8 STC 114
CENTRAL WINES•. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (lHAKKAR,J.] 951

· wherein an earlier decision of a Division Bench State of Andhra
A
Pradesh v. Bujranga Jute Mills Ltd., [ 1955] 6 STC 376 to the effect that
sales tax collected by the dealer from the buyers cannot be included in
his tum9ver and is not liable to be taxed again was over ruled. It may
incidentally be mentioned that the aforesaid full bench judgment of
the High Court was noted with approval by this Court in Mis George
i Oakes (P) Ltd. v. State of Madras., [1961] 12 S.T.C. 476. B

Some salient features require to be underscored in order to test
the merits of these submissions:-
_··y ( l) There is no provision in the Act which imposes a legai obli-
gation on the vendor of the goods to recover sales tax on the
goods sold to the vendee. For instance the vendor is not pro- c
''t
hibited from selling the goods without recovering the sales tax
from the. vendee. The seller may not charge or recover the
sales tax from the buyer. He will not be violating any provision of
the Act or incurring any penal consequence by doing so. In other
words the collection of the sales tax from the buyer is a matter of D
his choice. He may or may not do so. If he does not do so he does
not expose himself to any penal conse'!uence or legal liability.

(2) There is no legal obligation imposed by the Act on the buyer
~· of the goods to pay sales tax at the time of the purchase of the
goods. If the vendor does not insist on such payment and if the E
buyer does not pay the tax he does not violate any provision of

- the law or incur any legal liability.

(3) There is no provision in the Act which casts any legal duty on
"(' the vendor to mention in the bill or the voucher issued to the
buyer that sales tax has been recovered from the buyer. Nor is F
I there any obligation on him to show that sales tax is included in
the price charged or to specify the amount of sales tax separately
in the bill or voucher.

(4) Nothing in the Act requires the dealer to set apart the
amount recovered from the vendee by way of sales tax. He is G
neither bound to keep a separate account of the amount so re-
~ covered nor to keep it in a separate cash box. He can treat it as
his own money, keep it in his own cash box, and use it as if it
were his own property. If the amount is stolen or is misappro-
priated by his employee it is he who loses his own money and it is
not the Revenue which has to bear the loss. H
952 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1987] 1 S.C.R.

(5) His lial\ility to pay sales tax is analogous to his liability to pay
A the Municipal taxes or the Income-tax etc. The liability is to pay
from his own property and not from any property earmarked for
that purpose from out of the collection of tax made from the
buyers.

B (6) The dealer is no doubt required to deposit along with sales-
tax return periodically the amount of tax due on the sales
effected by him. But that is merely a convenient mode of dis-
charging his liability at the intervals as enjoined by Act. It is
neither linked nor dependent on recovery if any made by him
from the buyer (which he may or may not make).
y-
c (7) The dealer is not paid any remuneration or reward for col-
lecting the sales tax. If he was acting as an Agent, the State would
be obliged to pay him some remuneration or reward for the State
cannot oblige him to work as its agent gratis. It would ainount to
forced labour if it were otherwise.
D
- The aforesaid factors, viewed cumulatively, make it evident that
a dealer who sells the goods does not act as an agent for the State in
collecting the sales tax from the persons to whom he sells the goods. If
he was acting as an Agent he would be required to take reasonable
care of the sale proceeds as a bailee. He would also be required to set
E apart the same without intermingling with his own money, for, he
cannot use the monies belonging to the State for his own private
purposes. If the intention of the legislature was to make him an agent,
the legislature would have imposed penal liability on the vendor if he -
F
were not to collect the taxes. He would be obliged to maintain separate
accounts of the collection made by him as also to trea: ,he collections
as the collections made by the agent on behalf of the principal. It is
v
therefore futile to contend that the sales tax component of the sale
price charged by the vendor to' the vendee is collected by him as an
(
agent of the State Government. Even if therefore the bill or the vou-
cher issued to the purchaser indicates the amount of sales tax sepa-
rately what is collected by the vendor from the vendee is not tax but is
G merely a part of the sale price charged by the vendor to the vendee. So
far as the statute is concerned it does not cast any obligation on the
purchaser of the goods to pay any tax and therefore what is collected
by the vendor from the vendee by way of consideration for passing the
property in the goods to the vendee is the price charged by him and not
tax collected by him from the purchaser. The amount of money which
H goes from the pocket of the vendee to the pocket of the vendor as a
CENTRAL WINES v. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER [THAKKAR. J. I 953
~
condition or consideration for passing of the property in the goods is A
thus the sale price and not the tax. It is the amount, but for the
payment of which, the vendor would not transmit his title to tile goods
in favour of the vendee, and not any amount paid by the vendee
towards any tax liability incurred by him on making the purchase of the
·goods. It is no doubt true that a dealer as a prudent businessman would
-'( pass on the burden in· the context of the sales tax liability to the buyer. B
But then he would be doing so in order that he may not make a loss on
the transaction. Inasmuch as no businessman carries on business with a
view to incur loss, that he would take into account this factor at the
-:" 1 time of collecting the sale price from the vendee stands to reason. That
however does not mean that he is collecting the tax from the purchaser
(for which in fact he has no authority in law under the Act). Just as a
businessman would take into account the expenses that he would have
c
"' to incur for the running of the business such as rent, salary, and other
establishment charges, just as he would keep a reasonable profit
margin in the context of the investment made by him, he would also
take into account the factor that he would have to pay sales tax on the
turnover having regard to the statutory liability imposed on him by the D
Act. That however does not mean that what he is charging from the
vendee is the tax and not a part of the sale price. So also it would not
mean that he has been acting as an agent for Revenue. Nothing would
~ tum on whether the bill or voucher issued to the vendee is so made out
to show that the sales tax is charged separately. If he does so he would
be doing so only for the sake of his accouniing purposes and conveni- E
ence. The consideration obtained by him from the vendee would in the

- eye of law be the sale price regardless of what nomenclature is given to
a part of the price charged by him.

y Thus there is no substance whatever in the contention that the
sales tax component included in the sale price is not includible in F
> making the aggregate for the purpose of the turnover, it being a tax
recovered from the purchaser and not the price of the goods charged to
the vendee.

What is more, in George Oakes (Pvt.) Ltd. v. State of Madras,
[1961] i2 STC 476 this Court had an occasion to consider a similar G
challe~ge made in the context of the constitutional validity of Section
~ 8B of Madras General Sales Tax Act 1939 wherein this Court has
;
repelled this very argument in no unclear terms:-

"Obviously, it is not the name the legislature accords to a
payment by a purchaser to a seller, who is a dealer as H
954 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] I S.C.R.
)..
defined by the Act, that detelinines the question of the
A legislative competence. No doubt section 8-8 called the
payment as amount (collected) by way of tax. It is equally
true that the statutory liability to pay the sales iax is laid on
the dealer. What is taxable is not each transaction of sale
but the total turnover of the dealer, computed in accor- r.
B dance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. But it is
well-recognised that whatever be the form of the statutory
provisions, the ultimate economic incidence of the tax is on
the consumer, the purchaser. It was that well-settled princi-
ple that was re-stated in Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State
of Bihar. Even if the registered dealer collects the amount
Y~
by way of tax under the authority of section 8-8 of the Act,
c the payment is by the purchaser on the occasion of the sale i<o
by the dealer. Vis-a-vis the dealer it is in reality part of the
price th.e purchaser has to pay the seller for purchasing the
goods."

D Reliance was placed by the appellants .on McDowel & Company
v. Commercial Tax Officer AIR 1977 SC 1459 in support of the plea
that the amount collected from the buyers if kept apart cannot be
included in computing the turnover of the dealer. In our opinion, this
submission is clearly misconceived. In McDowe/'s case this Court was ...4,
dealing with the question as regards the includibility of excise duty and
E countervailing duty in the aggregate turnover of the dealer. This court
has taken that view inasmuch as the excise duties and countervailing
duties were paid directly by the purchasers to the excise authorities
before removing the same from the distilleries or the bonded ware-
houses and accordingly the same were not includible in the turnover of
-
the dealers. Since the amount was not charged or paid by the dealers
F but by the manufacturers, this Court upheld the contention of the
assessees (vide paragraph 12 of the judgment).

This decision can be of no avail to the appellants because in the
present case the amount in question is charged or recovered by the
sellers from the buyers whether it is mentioned as Sales tax or not. The
G principle laid down in McDowe/'s case cannot be applied to the fact·
situation in the present case. In fact in Mc Dowel's case the full Bench
decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court Govt. of Andhra Pradesh
v. East India Commercial C Ltd., AIR 1967 Andhra Pradesh 83 has
been noted with approval in paragraph 17 of the judgment.

H It was further argued by learned counsel for the appellants draw-
CENTRAL WINES v. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (THAKKAR, J.] 955

.~
ing inspiration from Anand Swarup Mahesh Kumar v. The Commis- A
sioner of Sales Tax, [ 1980] 4 SCC 451 that the matter requires recon-
sideration in the light of the observations made therein. We are unable
to accede to this submission. In Anand Swarup Mahesh Kumar's case
this Court was concerned with the 'market fee' collected by a dealer
_ from the purchaser for being passed on to the market committee under
1
\ U.P. Act No. XXV of 1964. It was an amount which the statute ll
authorised the dealer to collect from the purchaser separately and
directly under the authority of Section 17 (iii) (b)( I) of the said Act
and to pass it on or make it over to the Market Committee. It is
- "'fevident that it was an amount collected by the dealer undefthe statu-
tory authority as an agent of the Market Committee for being passed
on to the Management Committee and therefore could not be treated
~ as a component of the sale price of the goods which were sold to the
c
purchaser. It was in this context that this Court came to the conclusion
that the Market fee so collected could not be included in the turnover
as is evident from the pertinent passage:-

"From the observations made in the decisions referred to D
above, it follows that where a dealer is authorised by law, to
pass to any tax pc./ able by him on the transaction of sale to
the purchaser, such tox does not form part of.the considera-
~-. tion for purposes of levy of tax on sales or purchases but
where there is no statutory provision authorising the dealer
to pass on the tax to the purchaser, such tax does form part E
of the consideration when he includes it in the price and
realizes the same from the purchaser. The essential factor
which distinguishes the former class of cases from the latter
class is the exist.ence of a statutory provision authorising a
dealer to recover the tax payable on the transaction of sale
from the purchaser. It is on account of the above distinction F
that this Court held in Joint Commercial Officer, Division
II, Madras- I v. Spencer & Co. ( 1975 Supp SCR ~39) that
the sales tax which a seller of foreign liquor was liable to
pay under Section 21-A of the Madras Prohibition Act,
1937 did not form part of the turnover on which sales tax
could be levied under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, G
1959 because the seller was entitled to recover the sales tax
payable by him from the purchaser. The relevant part of
Section 21-A of the Madras Prohibition Act. 1937 referred
to above read thus:

21-A. Every person or institution which sells foreign H
956 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 1 S.C.R.
).
A liquor-shall collect from the purchaser and pay over to the
government at such intervals and in such manner as may be
prescribed, a sales tax calculated at the rate of eight annas
in the rupee, or at such the other rate as may be notified by
the government from time to time, on the price of the
liquor so sold." 'r
B
It will thus be seen that this Court has again reaffirmed the
position that the includibility must turn on the question as to whether
or not the tax is recoverable from the purchasers under a stautory
obligation. This decision cannot therefore be of any avail to the appel-
lants inasmuch as there is no such statutory provision in the Act with
C which we are concerned.

Lastly it was argued that in the second category of cases where
the sales tax was not included in the bill and was kept in the suspense
account by the seller, it could not be included in the total turnover.
This fallacious argument was righlty negatived by the High Court for
D the obvious reason that the amount includible in the turnover on the
true interpretation of the relevant provisions cannot become excludi-
ble merely by reason of the accountancy device adopted by the asses-
see concerned.

There is no substance in any of the contentions urged on behalf
E of the appellants. The view taken by the High Court is unexception-
able. The appeals fail and are dismissed. The interim orders shall stand
vacated. The appellants assessees will be liable to pay the amount due
as sales tax along with interest thereon @ 12% as per the condition
imposed by this Court at the time of gra!lting the interim stay. The
sales tax authorities may recover the amount due by encashing Bank
F Guarantee as also by effecting recovery in accordance with law.

S.R. Appeals dismissed.