Introduction
Under Sales Tax laws, the sales effected are liable to tax. However, if there is sales return (also referred to as “Goods return”) then the amount relating to such returns is not liable to tax. However, there are certain time limits for allowing this deduction. For example, under MVAT Act, 2002 and CST Act, 1956 following are the time limits for allowing the claim of ‘goods return’.
Rule 3 of MVAT Rules, 2005
“3. Goods returned and deposits refunded:- The period for return of goods and refund of deposits for the purposes of clauses (32) and (33) of section 2 shall be six months from the date of the purchase or, as the case may be, the sale.”
Similarly, Section 8A (1) (b) of CST Act provides as under:
“Section 8A (1)(b) The sale price of all goods returned to the dealer by the purchasers of such goods,-
(i) Within a period of three months from the date of delivery of the goods, in the case of goods returned before the 14th day of May, 1966.
(ii) Within a period of six months from the date of delivery of the goods, in the case of goods returned on or after the 14th day of May, 1966.
Provided that satisfactory evidence of such return of goods and of refund or adjustment in accounts of the sale price thereof is produced before the authority competent to assess or as the case may be, re-assess the tax payable by the dealer under this Act.”
It can be seen from above, that the total period (time limit) allowed for claim of goods returns is six months. The issue, for consideration herein is, if the goods return is beyond a period of six months, because of valid reasons, whether the claim is tenable. More particularly, such issue arises in relation to medicines where there is date of expiry of the medicines. In normal circumstances, the said dates are beyond the period of six months. In other words, if there are unsold medicines lying with the dealer after the expiry date, such medicines have to be returned, which may be beyond six months. In such a situation, whether the statutory time limits for ‘sales return’ can be ignored and deduction can be allowable.
Recently, Honourable Kerala High Court had an occasion to deal with such an issue. The judgment is in case of Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. State of Kerala (50 VST 486)(Ker). In this case, the medicines were returned by the buyers after the expiry date and such dates were beyond six months. In other words, the sales returns were beyond six months and the assessing authority disallowed the claim. Before the Honourable High Court, the dealer made two fold arguments. It was his submission that either sales returns should be allowed or the sales should be considered as unfructified sales. The High Court, after considering the arguments, gave detailed judgment on the same, observing as follows:
“3. After hearing both sides, what we find is that the petitioner’s claim of sales return was not allowed because the rule does not permit it. What was sold was medicines with potency and what is returned much after sale and second round of sale is medicines, the life period of which is over. Having had a pre-fixed period of potency, it is unlikely that sales return of life expired medicines will be within three months. Manufacture of medicines itself is geared up to patient demand soon after marketing is done. Therefore, when first sales are made, the medicines sold will have beyond three months shelf-life. Therefore, sales returns do not happen within three months of sales. So much so, under the existing rules which permit deduction of sales return only within three months of sale, the petitioner or other medical companies cannot get deduction of sales returns. The Kerala General Sales Tax Act or the Rules do not specifically provide any provision for refund or adjustment of tax paid in respect of sale of medicines which have lost potency at the hands of the dealer and which have been collected and destroyed by the company. The only provision for granting deduction is rule 9(b)(i) which provides for sales return within three months of sale which does not happen, because no medicine sold will have such short-period of three months of shelf-life. The petitioner also has no case that the sales return claimed of shelf-life expired medicines were within three months of the sale by the petitioner and so much so, the claim was rightly rejected in assessment and confirmed by the Tribunal. We do not find any error with the finding of the lower authorities.
The counsel for the petitioner raised an alternate contention that transaction should be treated as unfructified sales and so much so, since there is no time-limit for claiming deduction, the petitioner is entitled to refund of tax paid. This is opposed by the Government Pleader on several grounds.
In the first place, the sale of the item has really taken place from the petitioner to the distributor and from the distributor in turn to the dealer. The fact that the last retail dealer could not sell the medicine with the shelf-life period does not mean that the sale by the petitioner to distributor and in turn to dealer had not taken place. On the other hand, goods reach retail dealers only on second sales and admittedly the petitioner has not directly sold medicines to the retail dealers who returned the goods through distributors.
Therefore, the petitioner’s claim that the sale has not taken effect and on return of the medicines after expiry of the shelf-life, the original sale gets cancelled or frustrated is unacceptable. The practice followed is that shelf-life expired medicines are collected by the company from distributors and destroyed as part of the condition of the marketing to save dealers from loss. In fact, such loss is essentially borne by the manufacturing company, and the dealers or distributors obviously and rightly are not called upon to meet the loss. Further, as a matter of practice, the medicines returned on expiry of shelf-life are not replaced by the petitioner as such. But its value is reimbursed to the distributors through credit notes who in turn issue credit notes to retail dealers. Therefore, it is not a case of return of medicine on expiry of shelf-life and cannot be treated as fructified sales or unfructified sales. So much so, the petitioner’s contention in this regard is also not acceptable.”
Conclusion
It can be seen that statutory provisions apply in spite of genuine difficulties. The claim of unfructified sale is also not maintainable. The legislatures should provide relief in such genuine cases. In fact, in the above judgment, the Honourable High Court has observed for providing necessary statutory relief.
