PUNJAB DISTILLING INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SIMLA

CIVIL APPEAL No. 119/1955Supreme Court1958 INSC 10624 November 1958Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: T.L. VENKATARAMA AIYYAR, P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A.K. SARKAR16 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the amounts paid to the appellant and described as 'Empty Bottles Return Security Deposit' were trading receipts and therefore income of the appellant assessable to tax. The Court distinguished the case from Morley v. Tattersall, stating that the amounts in question were the appellant's moneys and not received on behalf of any third party. The Court reasoned that these deposits were an integral part of the commercial transaction of selling liquor, representing an extra price for the bottles, and had a profit-making quality. The wholesaler's freedom to not return the bottles meant the appellant could retain the money as profit. Therefore, the High Court's affirmative answer to the question was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Punjab Distilling Industries Ltd., a distiller of country liquor, sold liquor to licensed wholesalers. During a wartime bottle shortage, a scheme was implemented where distillers could charge wholesalers a government-fixed price for bottles, refundable upon return. Additionally, the appellant collected a further sum described as a 'security deposit' for bottle returns. This deposit was also refunded upon bottle return, but only when 90% of the bottles covered by the deposit were returned. The appellant was assessed to income tax on the balance of these security deposits remaining after refunds. The High Court upheld this assessment, and the appeal was filed against that decision.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the collections by the assessee company described as 'empty bottle return security deposits' were income assessable under Section 10 of the Income-tax Act? Assessee's Contention: The appellant argued that these amounts were not trading receipts but genuine security deposits, akin to those in Morley v. Tattersall, where moneys received were not the firm's income but client's money. They contended that the quality of a receipt for income tax purposes is fixed at the moment of receipt and that these deposits, even if eventually not refunded, did not become income upon transfer to the credit of partners. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that these 'security deposits' were an integral part of the commercial transaction of selling liquor and represented an extra price charged for the bottles. They argued that the deposits were the appellant's moneys and had a profit-making quality, especially since the wholesaler was free to not return the bottles, in which case the appellant would retain the money as profit.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

(1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 683 the said presumption.

We must, therefore, hold 'that the High Court was right in ta.king the view that, on the facts and circumstances proved in t.his ca:::e, the transaction in question is an adventure in the nature of trade.

The result is the appeal fails and must be dismissed with costs. '

Appeal dismissed. PUNJAB DISTILLING INDUS'fRIES LTD. v. THE COMMISSIONER 0]' INCOME-TAX, SIMLA (VENKATARAMA AIYAR, GAJENDRAGADKAR and A. K. SARKAR, JJ.)

Income-tax-Distiller tahing deposit refundable on return of bottles-Balance of deposits after refund, if trading receipt--Indian Income-tax Act (XI of z922), s. IO.

The appellant, a distiller of country liquor, carried on the business of selling liquor to licensed wholesalers. Due to shortage of bottles during the war a scheme was evolved, where- under the distiller could charge a wholesaler a price for the bottles in which liquor was supplied at rates fixed by the Government, which he was bound to repay to the wholesaler on his returning the bottles. In addition to this the appellant took a further sum from the wholesalers described as 'security deposit' for the return of the bot

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 10

All 591 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →