Hire purchase transaction is covered within purview of the term ‘Sale’ and therefore insurance premium forms part of ‘Sale Price’/ Trade Mark is not exhausted once goods are sold
TATA Engineering and Locomotive Co.Ltd.(Now Known as TATA Motors Ltd.)[the Appellant or the Company] is a manufacturer of Motor Vehicles and also engaged in the business of hire finance of Motor Vehicles. The Appellant purchased a new Tata Diesel Chassis from M/s India Automobiles, a registered Dealer of the Appellant, on payment of taxes for a total purchase price of Rs.5,08,180/-. The Chassis was sold by the Appellant on hire purchase basis to Ajit Singh Bhimrao (the Hirer) under sale invoice.
In terms of the hire purchase agreement dated February 7, 1996, the Hirer had to make initial payment of Rs.68,180/- and balance amount in 47 monthly installments. Thus, as against a purchase price of Rs.5,08,180/-, the Appellant was to receive an amount of Rs.8,34,781/- from the hirer which consisted of the price of the Chassis, hire premium, insurance premium for three years and auction money.
The Appellant in terms of Section 52 of Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (the BST Act) made an application before the Ld. Commissioner for determination of the Sale price in respect of Motor Vehicle sold by the Appellant on hire purchase. The Appellant urged that the hire charges receivable and received were in respect of the financial services and hence will not form part of the Sale price of Motor Vehicle. Further, price of Motor Vehicle at the time of delivery thereof to the hirer willrepresent the Sale price of Motor Vehicle. Therefore, Rs.5,08,180/- and not Rs.8,34,781/- should be taken as the Sale price.
The Ld. Commissioner rejected the Appellant’s contentions and concluded that the Sale price of Motor Vehicle sold on hire purchase basis would be the entire amount including hire premium and insurance premium received from the Hirer. The same was further upheld by the Hon’ble Tribunal.
In another matter of the Appellant, the‘re-sale’ claim made under Section 8(2) of the BST Act was disallowed on the ground that the Appellant was holder of trade mark. Being aggrieved in both the matters, the Appellant preferred an appeal before the Hon’bleHigh Court of Mumbai.
The Hon’ble High Court of Mumbai held as under:
