MIS BLACK DIAMOND BEVERAGES AND ANR. versus THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL SECTION, ASSESSMENT WING CALCUTTA AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 133 · Decided: 16-09-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.P. BHARUCHA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

MIS BLACK DIAMOND BEVERAGES AND ANR. 
v. 
THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL 
SECTION, ASSESSMENT WING CALCUTTA AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 
[S.P. BHARUCHA AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.] 
Sales Tax: 
A 
B 
West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954: Section 2(d)-"Freight or delivery C 
charges"-Whether included within the definition of "Sale price"-Held, 
Yes-Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941-Section 2(h)-Rajasthan Sales 
Tax Act, 1954-Section 2(p). 
Words & Phrases : 
"Sale price"-Meaning of in the context of Section 2(d) of West Bengal 
Sales Tax Act, 1954. 
D 
Section 2(d) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954 defines "Sales 
price". A dispute arose as to whether the "freight or delivery charges" are 
to be treated as included within the words "money co11sideration" in Section E 
2(d) of the Act. The case of the appellant was that freight charges cannot be 
included in the meaning of the word 'money transaction' in the definition of 
'sale price' in Section 2(d) of the Act. The Tribunal dismissed the application 
filed by the appellants. 
F 
Hence, the present appeal. 
The contention of the appellants was that Section 2(d) of the Act 
specifically includes in the definition of 'sale price' any sum charged for 
containers or other materials for the packing of the notified commodities and 
in the absence of a similar inclusion of 'freight charges' such charges must, G 
by implication be treated as outside the sale price. Under Section 2(h) of the 
Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act 1941 the definition of 'sale price' expressly 
excluded 'delivery charges' and for that reason the Act must have of necessity 
contained a specific clause including 'freight charges' within the meaning of 
'sale price'. 
133 
H 
134 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
The contention ofRevenne was that the obligation of paying the 'freight 
B 
charges' was on the appellant sellers and therefore must be treated as included 
in the 'sale price' under Section 2(d). 
Dismissing the appeals, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. The amount of'freight or handling charges' would be payable 
by the purchaser not under any statutory or other liability but as part of the 
consideration of the sale of the goods and would form part of 'sale price'. 
(139-D) 
C 
Hindustan Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, [1978) 4 SCC 271 = 
. 43 STC 13, relied on. 
1.2. The definition of 'sale price' in Section 2(d) uses the words 'means' 
and 'includes'. The first part of the definition defines the meaning of the word 
'sale price'. It must be given its ordinary, popular or natural meaning. The 
D interpretation thereof is in no way controlled or affected by the second part 
which 'includes' certain other things in the definition. This is a well settled 
principle of construction. Therefore, the inclusive part of the definition cannot 
prevent the main provision from receiving its natural ~eaning.[137-D; F) 
E 
I.3. The exclusionary words in Section 2(h) of the Bengal Finance (Sales 
Tax) Act, 194i were only intended to exclude certain specific things which 
were otherwise within the first part or such exclusion could also be ex 
abundante cautela. The non-inclusion of 'freight charges' expressly in the 
Act has no impact on the natural meaning of the first part of Section 2(d) just 
as the exclusion of 'packing charges' in Section 2(d) does not have any impact 
F on the first part of Section 2( d). The first part of the definition remains to 
have its natural meaning unaffected by what other things are expressly 
included in the second part; and is also unaffected by what is not expressly 
included. Therefore, neither the inclusion of 'packing charges' in Section 
2(d) of the Act nor the exclusion of'freight charges' from Section 2(h) of the 
G Bengal Finance Act and the absence of any such express inclusion of freight 
charges in the Act does not alter or affect whatever meaning is to be attributed 
to the first part of the Act which is similar to the first part of Section 2(p) of 
the Rajasthan Act, 1954. [138-C-F) 
T. V.L. Ramco Cement Distribution Co. v. State a/Tamil Nadu, [1993) I 
H sec 192, held applicable. 
BLACK DIAMOND BEVERAGES'· COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.] 
135 
Hyderabad Asbestos Products Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1969) A 
24 STC 487, distinguished. 
Southern Motors v. State of Karna/aka, (1996) 102 STC 235, held 
inapplicable. 
Love v. Norman Wright (Builders) Ltd., (1944) 1 All ER 618, referred B 
to. 
Craies on Statute Law, 7th Ed
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.