ORDER
U.L. Bhat, J. (President)
1. The dispute in the appeal relates to 19 revised price lists, some filed in respect of the year 1985-86 and others filed in respect of the year 1986-87. Appellant, manufacturer of ‘Horlics’ was filing price lists. Prices declared in the original price lists were prices exclusive of sales tax payable for the current period. We are told that in the original price lists appellant was always claiming deduction of extra payments made by way of extra sales tax in respect of previous periods. In the revised price lists deduction was sought for certain amounts paid as sales tax over and above the amount sought for deduction in the original price lists and also paid in respect of an earlier period. Lower authorities have allowed deduction of the extra amount which the appellant paid in respect of clearances made during the period in question but disallowed the claim for deduction of sales tax paid in respect of clearances made during the previous period. Rejection of this part of the claim is now challenged.
2. Shri S.R. Sengupta, Assistant Manager Accounts of the appellant is present before us and addressed arguments. He explained that every year the appellant collects sales tax from the buyers and makes over the same to the State Government. But it may so happen that there may be dispute regarding sales tax payable and ultimately the sales tax authorities may after a period of a few years finally settle the controversy which would result in the appellant being required to pay additional amounts by way of sales tax for previous period. When such a situation results, the appellant will not be in a position to collect from the buyers the extra sales tax quantified and required to be paid by the appellant at a later date and these payments when made by the appellant during the succeeding period are claimed as deduction in the revised price lists but not in the price lists in relation to which extra payment is made. We quite appreciate the difficulty as presented by the appellant’s representative but this is no reason to hold that assessable value of the goods cleared during the years 1985-86 and 1986-87 should be reduced by any amount of sales tax paid during these years in respect of sales effected by the appellant during the previous period. Such amount has nothing to do with the assessable value of clearances made during the succeeding years. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order of the lower authorities.
3. The appeal is dismissed.