Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
M/S. Vellanki Frame Works, A Sole ... vs The Commercial Tax Officer, ... on 18 December, 2014
Author: Ramesh Ranganathan
Bench: Ramesh Ranganathan
THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE M.M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION NOS.4552 OF 2013 and batch
18-12-2014
M/s. Vellanki Frame Works, A sole proprietory Concern Rep., by its Proprietor
Sanjiv Agarwal, Vellanki Village, Anandapuram, Visakhapatnam. .Petitioner
The Commercial Tax Officer, Chinawaltair Circle, Visakhapatnam . Respondent
Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Ch.Pushyam Kiran
Counsel for respondent: Sri P. Balaji Varma, Learned Special
Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes
<GIST:
>HEAD NOTE:
? Citations:
1) AIR 1961 SC SC 61 = 11 STC 655
2) (2011) 40 VST 150 (AP)
3) (1975) 35 Company Cases 571
4) 20 STC 146
5) 1997 (106) STC 460
6) (1986) 4 SCC 447
7) AIR 1964 SC 207 = (1964) 4 SCR 280
8) (2004) 10 SCC 201
9) (1926) AC 37
10) AIR 1940 PC 124
11) AIR 1981 SC 1887
12) (1990) 3 SCC 481
13) (1977) 39 STC 478 (SC)
14) (2007) 9 SCC 461
15) AIR 1977 SC 2149
16) (2008) 2 SCC 280
17) AIR 1966 SC 334
18) AIR 1962 SC 1210
19) AIR 1973 SC 964
20) (2002) 4 SCC 638
21) AIR 1962 SC 1183
22) (2003) 6 SCC 675
23) AIR 1954 SC 440
24) 1952-1 KB 338
25) AIR 1955 SC 233
26) AIR 1964 SC 477
27) (2004) 3 SCC 682
28) (1958) SCR 1240
29) 2002 (149) ELT 3 : (2003) 129 STC 294
30) 1983 E.L.T. 65 (Ker)
31) (1974) 48 A.L.J.R. 232
32) (1926) 38 C.L.R. 131
33) AIR 1958 SC 341
34) (1981 E.L.T. 153 (Madras HC
35) (1987) 12 Wheat 419 at p. 442 = 6 Law Ed. 678
36) (1849) 9 Q.B. 459
37) 1990 (45) ELT 9
38) (1980) 1 SCC 621
39) (1987) 1 SCC 424
40) (1989) 1 SCC 164
41) (2007) 3 SCC 607
42) AIR 1995 SC 1395
43) 1975 (3) All E R 158
44) 262 U.S. 100, 43 S.Ct. 504, 67 L.Ed. 894
45) AIR 1962 Calcutta 242
46) AIR 1960 Madras 281
47) AIR 1960 Bombay 479
48) 1999 (106) ELT 9 (SC)
49) 2000 (126) E.L.T. 79 (Mad.) = AIR 1967 Madras 124
50) A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1760
51) (1985) 22 ELT 644 (Bombay HC F.B)
52) 1992 (59) E.L.T. 264 (Cal)
53) (1979) 3 SCC 54
54) 1999 (106) ELT 23
55) (1944) KB 718
56) (1941) 2 All ER 11
57) AIR 1962 SC 83
58) (1989)1 SCC 101
59) AIR 1967 SC 1480
60) (1991) 4 SCC 139
61) (2009) 6 SCC 379
62) (2004) 13 SCC 217
63) AIR 2003 Calcutta 96
64) (1996) 6 SCC 44
65) (2006) 1 SCC 275
66) (2005) 6 SCC 404
67) AIR 1968 SC 647
68) (1901) AC 495
69) (1991) 3 SCC 655
70) (2000) 5 SCC 488
71) 2012 (48) VST 443
72) (1985) 4 SCC 173
73) (1983)52STC268(AP)
74) (1994) 94STC 410(SC)
75) (2007) 7 VST 730 (AP)
THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
AND
THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION Nos.4552 AND 6258 of 2013
COMMON ORDER:(per Honble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) These two Writ Petitions are filed by the petitioner questioning the validity of the assessment orders dated 20.1.2010 and 18.5.2010 passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Chinnawaltair circle, for the assessment years 2005-06 & 2006-07, denying them exemption under Section 5(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, (hereinafter called the CST Act), on the turnover of Rs.1,14,86,342/- & Rs.4,05,09,427/- respectively, as contrary to the documents on record. During the pendency of the Writ Petitions the Petitioner filed additional grounds, by way of WPMP No.23096 and 23098 of 2014, contending, inter-alia, that the assessment order was without jurisdiction in the absence of any valid authorization from the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Visakhapatnam authorizing the respondent to take up assessment, under the CST Act, for the years 2005-06 and 2006-07.
For the tax period 2005-06, the Commercial Tax Officer, Chinawaltair Circle, Visakhapatnam issued show cause notice dated 19.11.2005, proposing to reject the petitioners claim of exemption on a turnover of Rs.1,14,86,342/-, treating the transaction as an inter-state sale falling under Section 3(a) of the CST Act. In respect of the said turnover, the petitioner (M/s. Vellanki Frame Works) had claimed exemption from payment of tax on the ground that the relevant sales were effected by transfer of documents of title before the goods had crossed the customs frontiers of India. In their reply to the show cause notice, the petitioner sought to explain the transactions, relatable to the turnover of Rs.1,14,86,342/-, which they claimed was covered by Section 5(2) of the CST Act. The petitioners case, as is noted by the assessing authority in the assessment order, is that M/s. Radha Industries, Lucknow, U.P (Radha for short), was their close business associate; Radha, which did not have the requisite infrastructure with the custom department, desired to purchase the subject goods from M/s. World Best Trading Co. (L.L.C.), Dubai (U.A.E), and had approached them for help; though they had the requisite infrastructure facilities at Visakhapatnam Customs, they did not have the letter of credit facilities to cause import; in these circumstances, the petitioner and Radha entered into a quadri- partite agreement with Indus Tropics Ltd. (Indus for short), whereby it was agreed that Indus would purchase the goods and sell them to the petitioner who would purchase the same from Indus as the agent of Radha, and transfer the documents on high seas in favour of Radha; in turn Radha agreed to pay the petitioner commission of 2% plus bank charges; the petitioner paid the entire amount to Indus without retaining a penny as commission; it was a friendly transaction arranged by the petitioner in favour of Radha; a quadri-partite agreement was entered into between Indus, the petitioner, Radha and World Best Trading Co. (L.L.C.); pursuant thereto, Indus purchased the goods and caused transfer of the bill of lading on high seas on 10.12.2005; on 12.12.2005, another high seas sale agreement was entered into between the petitioner and Radha whereby the bill of lading was sold in favour of Radha; the expression sold, as used in the said agreement, is a misnomer; what the parties meant was only transfer of the bill of lading in favour of Radha; on and from 12.12.2005, the petitioner did not have control over the bill of lading dated 09.12.2005, as they had parted with it in favour of Radha by then; since Radha did not have the customs facility at Visakhapatnam customs port, the petitioner had extended its help by filing a bill of entry in their name for the purpose of customs bonding, as well as customs clearance; the circumstance of filing a bill of entry has no relevance in determining the nature of the transaction; as seen from all the relevant documents, including (i) quadrilateral master agreement dated 21.01.2005, and (ii) the High Seas Sale agreement dated 12.12.2005, the petitioner had transferred the import document on high seas; at any rate, the title in the goods always stood vested in Radha, as the owner of the goods; the petitioner was merely acting as the agent of Radha at all points of time; by reason of transfer of the import document, it could not be said that the petitioner had sold the goods to Radha; on the contrary, as the petitioner had acted as the agent of Radha, at all points of time including at the time of purchase, the question of the petitioner selling the goods to Radha did not arise; the transactions between the petitioner and Radha cannot be treated as a transaction between one principal and another; the fact that the petitioner had charged commission at 2% plus bank charges to Radha, and had parted with the entire amount to Indus is proof that they had only acted as a conduit, as a friendly gesture to Radha; the transaction was accounted in the petitioners books of accounts as an agency purchase; receipt and payment of commission was also accounted in their books of accounts; their Balance Sheet for the year also supported this submission; transfer of imported goods by them to Radha did not partake the character of sale of goods; in any event the transfer, having being effected over high seas before bonding with the custom authorities, cannot be treated as inter-state sale in the State of Andhra Pradesh; and therefore further proceedings, in pursuance of the show cause notice, should be dropped.
In the assessment order dated 20.01.2010, the Commercial Tax Officer summed up the stand of the petitioner that the documents of title to the goods were transferred to Radha Industries on high seas by virtue of the high sea sale agreement dated 12.12.2005; the transaction did not attain the character of an inter-state sale; and filing of the bill of entry had no relevance in the context of determining the nature of the transaction. The Commercial Tax Officer held that it followed that it was not the petitioners claim that the sale or purchased had occasioned the import falling under the first limb of Section 5(2) of the CST Act; the question which necessitated examination was whether there was a sale of goods by the petitioner, or whether it constituted a commission transaction as stated by them; and in the computer print out of the petitioners trading account, for the year 2005-06, the purchase was shown as purchase trading (high seas), and the relevant sale was shown as sales trading (high seas). After referring to a few other details, the assessing authority noted the contents of the high seas sale agreement dated 10.12.2005 entered into between M/s. Indus Tropics Ltd and the petitioner wherein the latter was described as the buyer; the second high seas sales agreement dated 12.12.2005, entered into between the petitioner and M/s. Radha Industries, wherein the parties were described as the seller and the buyer respectively; and the letter of the assessee dated 25.11.2009 wherein, while submitting certain documents like the sales invoice, the bill of lading, high sea sale agreement, bill of entry for warehousing and the bill of entry of ex-bond, the petitioner had stated that they had claimed exemption from payment of tax on the ground that the said sales were effected by transfer of documents of title to the goods before the goods had crossed the customs frontiers of India.
The assessing authority held that it was obvious that the petitioners intention was to sell the goods and, in fact, there was a sale; there was no truth in their statement that they had acted as the agent of M/s. Radha Industries; Indus Tropics Limited had imported 324 PCS of Myanmar Hardwood Gurjan Round Logs from Yangon (Myanmar) to Vizag (India), and the relevant bill of lading dated 09.12.2005 was endorsed by the importer in favour of the petitioner; on the strength of such endorsed documents, Sri Sanjiv Kumar Agarwal (sole proprietor of the petitioner) had presented the bill of entry for warehousing; customs duty was assessed on the petitioner alone vide bill of entry for warehousing dated 12.12.2005; subsequently, the petitioner had filed the bill of entry for home consumption; customs duty was assessed on the petitioner alone vide bill of entry for ex-bond No.804353 dated 28.12.2005; the high sea sale agreement dated 12.12.2005 had not come into operation; sale, subsequent to customs clearance, had alone taken place; the petitioner had raised a debit note dated 12.01.2006 showing sales to M/s. Radha Industries for Rs.1,14,86,342/-; the high sea sale agreement dated 12.12.2005, entered into between the petitioner and the buyer, indicated that the parties intended to effect the transaction by a transfer of documents of title to the goods before the goods had crossed the customs frontiers of India; the sale, however, was not effected in such a manner; and the sale, in fact, took place on 12.01.2006 as shown in the debit note.
On the petitioners claim for exemption, on the ground that the said sale was effected by a transfer of documents of title to the goods before the goods had crossed the customs frontiers of India falling under Section 5(2) of the Act, the Commercial Tax Officer held that the goods must be treated as having crossed the customs frontiers of India, when the bill of entry was made and the goods were assessed to customs duty; the sale, effected by the petitioner, could not be said to be sales in the course of import or high sea sales in as much as the goods had crossed the customs frontiers; the second high sea sale agreement had not come into operation when the sale took place; there was no case for claiming that the transfer of documents was effected by virtue of the said agreement itself; the Supreme Court, in Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd., Bombay v. S.R. Sarkar , had held that the sale would be reckoned as a sale on completion of such sale, and a mere contract of sale is not a sale within the definition of sale; the sale had not taken place in the manner contemplated in the agreement; the sale, in fact, took place only after customs clearance; and the contention urged by the petitioner was devoid of merits.
In his assessment order dated 18.05.2010, the Commercial Tax Officer, Chinnawaltair circle, Visakhapatnam held that the petitioner had claimed exemption from payment of tax, in respect of a turnover of Rs.4,05,09,427/-, contending that this turnover represented sales effected by transfer of documents of title before the goods had crossed the customs frontiers of India; along with their returns, they did not file any evidence to show that the said sales were effected in such a manner; a show-cause notice dated 26.11.2009 was issued; pursuant thereto the assessee had furnished certain documents; these documents revealed that M/s.Porbunchal Lumbers (P) Ltd, Gujarat had imported 155 PCS of Myanmar Hardwood Gurjan Round logs from Yangon (Myanmar) to Vizag (India); the Bill of Lading was endorsed in favour of the petitioner (M/s.Vellanki Frame Works, Visakhapatnam); on the strength of these endorsed documents, and on filing a Bill of Entry for warehousing and a Bill of Entry for Ex-bond, customs duty was assessed on Sri Sanjiv Kumar Agarwal, Vellanki Frame Works, Vizag; the petitioner had reported the said transaction as high-sea sales to M/s.Radha Industries, Lucknow by raising a debit note; the documents also revealed other similar transactions; M/s.Alpine Panels Pvt. Ltd, Visakhapatnam had imported 273 PCS of Malaysian Round Logs from Singapore to Vizag; the bill of lading was claimed to have been endorsed in favour of the assessee; on the strength of such an endorsement, Sri Sanjiv Kumar Agarwal, Vellanki Frame Works, Vizag (the assessee) had filed the bill of entry for warehousing; he filed the bill of entry for ex-bond based on which duty was assessed on him alone; and the assessee had reported the said transaction as high sea sales to M/s.Indo - Bitumen Products, Rajasthan by raising a debit note. The assessment order also refers to four other transactions in all of which the bill of lading was endorsed in favour of the assessee; on the strength of the endorsement Sri Sanjiv Kumar Agarwal, Vellanki Frame Works, Vizag (assessee) had filed the bill of entry for warehousing; he had, subsequently, filed the bill of entry for ex- bond based on which duty was again assessed on him alone; and he had reported the said transaction as high sea sales to M/s.Pine Exporters, New Delhi by raising a debit note.
The assessing authority also held that transfer of documents of title, before clearance of goods by the customs authorities on making assessment, would be a sale in the course of import; and, after assessment is made on filing of the bill of entry, the goods get mingled with the general mass of goods and merchandise of the country attracting the character of local goods; they cease to be foreign goods thereafter; it was clear that in the present case, on filing the bill of entry for warehousing and the bill of entry for ex- bond, the petitioner alone was assessed to customs duty; the import stream had dried upon such clearance by the customs authorities; the goods had mixed into the stream of local goods; any subsequent sale by the petitioner would, therefore, constitute sale of local goods exigible to tax; the transactions, which the assessee had claimed exemption as high sea sales, were liable to be treated as inter-state sales falling under Section 3(a) of the CST Act; as is ascertainable from the bills of entry for warehousing and ex-bond, transfer of title had not taken place before filing of the bills of entry, and assessment of customs duty; the sale took place after the assessment was made on the assessee, and on his filing the Bills of Entry; the said sales had, thus, attained the character of sale of local goods; the goods must be treated as having crossed the customs frontiers of India, after the bill of entry had been made and the goods were assessed to customs duty; the sales effected by the assessee cannot be said to be sales in the course of import or high sea sales in as much as the goods had crossed the customs frontiers; the letter addressed to M/s.Pine Exporters, New Delhi, showed that they never received any Malaysian round logs from the petitioner, which established that their claim was not genuine; the letter sent to M/s.Esskay Impex, New Delhi, was returned with the postal endorsement no such firm at this place which also showed that the petitioners claim was not genuine; and the transactions, on which the petitioner had claimed exemption as high sea sales, should be treated as inter-state sales falling under Section 3(a) of the CST Act.
Extensive arguments were put forth by Sri S.Ravi, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and Sri P. Balaji Varma, Learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. Written submissions were also filed by Sri Ch.Pushyam Kiran, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri P. Balaji Varma, Learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. It is convenient to examine the rival submissions, urged by Learned Counsel on either side, under different heads.
I. DOES THE TERRITORIAL ASSESSING AUTHORITY, BEFORE WHOM THE DEALER FILES HIS RETURNS UNDER THE CST ACT, HAVE JURISDICTION TO PASS AN ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THE ABSENCE OF AUTHORISATION FROM THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER?
Sri S. Ravi, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would submit that the power of assessment is found in Section 21(3) & (4) of the A.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (VAT Act for short) read with Rule 25(5) of the A.P. Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 (VAT Rules for short); under Sections 21(3) & (4) of the VAT Act, the authority competent to assess the petitioner to tax is the prescribed authority; under Rule 59(4) (ii)(b) the Commercial Tax Officer or the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, having territorial jurisdiction over the dealers in the circle, also require authorization from the Deputy Commissioner concerned to make assessment; the corresponding Sections indicated thereagainst are Sections 21(3), (4) & (5) and Rule 25(5); an assessment can be made, under Section 21(3), (4) or (5) of the VAT Act read with Rule 25(5) of the VAT Rules, only if the Commercial Tax Officer is authorized by the Deputy Commissioner concerned; the only exception is in respect of a Large Tax Payer dealer, where the Assistant Commissioner can exercise the power to make assessment without the necessity of authorization; Rule 59(4)(ii)(b) was amended by GO Ms.No.33 dated 23.01.2013; for assessments made thereafter, there is no necessity of an authorization for the Commercial Tax Officer, having territorial jurisdiction over the dealer concerned, to make assessment; the assessment orders, in the present cases, were passed on 20.1.2010 & 18.5.2010 prior to the amendment of Rule 59(4)(ii)(b); the Commercial Tax Officer cannot, therefore, assume jurisdiction merely because he receives the returns under the VAT Act, unless he has been authorized by the Deputy Commissioner; in the present case, both the assessment orders were passed under the CST Act; the CST Act does not define assessing authority; the CST (Andhra Pradesh) Rules, 1957 (AP Rules for short) prescribes the procedure for assessment; though the words appropriate assessing authority is defined in Rule 2[c] of the AP Rules, this expression is not found anywhere else in the Rules; Rule 14-A of the AP Rules refers only to the assessing authority, and not the appropriate assessing authority; the procedural provisions, applicable under the VAT Act, automatically apply to the CST Act in view of Section 9(2) of the CST Act; as the petitioners are liable to pay tax under the general sales tax law of the State (VAT Act), the assessing authority, for the purpose of the CST Act, would be the assessing authority under the VAT Act; the authority who is competent to assess, based on the authorization issued by the competent authority, is the assessing authority under the VAT Act; in the present case the Commercial Tax Officer, who is the territorial assessing authority, must trace his power of assessment to the authorization issued by the Deputy Commissioner even for the purposes of the CST Act; the observations, in Sri Balaji Flour Mills v. The Commercial Tax Officer , that the authorities, who have territorial jurisdiction over the dealer, need not have a separate authorization for assessment is contrary to the plain reading of the Section and the Rules; since Section 20 & 21 relating to assessment, and various Rules including Rule 59(1), use the term prescribed, the authority prescribed, wherever mentioned, means the one prescribed by the Rules; no officer can assume jurisdiction to himself under the VAT Act, (at the relevant point of time i.e., prior to 23.1.2013), that he is competent to assess a dealer merely because he falls within his territorial jurisdiction, unless there is an authorization for assessment; and, consequently, the respondent cannot assess the petitioner under the CST Act merely because he is the territorial assessing authority unless he is authorised by the Deputy Commissioner of the Division.
On the other hand Sri P.Balaji Varma, Learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes, would submit that the assessing authority has jurisdiction to pass the impugned order in terms of Rule 14-A(6) of the AP Rules; Section 4 of the APGST Act, 1957 conferred power on the State government similar to those conferred by Section 3-A of the VAT Act; in the exercise of its powers under Section 4, the Government of Andhra Pradesh delegated, to the Board of Revenue, the power to notify the local limits within which the officers may perform the functions conferred on them by or under the APGST Act; by virtue of Section 80(1) of the VAT Act, the notifications issued under the APGST Act continue to govern; the territorial authority is competent to take up assessment of dealers within his jurisdiction without any further authorisation; the impugned assessment orders are, therefore, not without jurisdiction; Rule 2(c) of the AP Rules, by implication, makes the territorial authority or the prescribed authority, the assessing authority under the CST Act; the prescribed authorities under the VAT Act are the authorities enumerated under Rule 59 of the VAT Rules; as held by this Court, in Balaji Flour Mills2, the territorial officer can assess in case of non-filing or incomplete returns; the power of the territorial authority, for the purpose of assessment, gets clouded/suspended only when a specific authorisation is given to some one else; and, as such, he also becomes the assessing authority under the CST Act.
Section 9(2) of the CST Act provides that the authorities empowered to assess, reassess, collect and enforce payment of tax under the general sales tax law of the appropriate State, shall assess, re-assess, collect and enforce payment of tax under the CST Act as if the tax payable by such a dealer under the CST Act is a tax payable under the general sales tax law of the State. The said section further provides that, for this purpose, the authorities under the general sales tax law of the State may exercise all or any of the powers they have under the general sales tax law of the State and the provisions of such law, including provisions relating to returns etc, shall apply accordingly. The last limb of Section 9(2) of the CST Act, viz. "and the provisions of such law........ shall apply accordingly", mean that the provisions of the State Act are applicable for the purpose of assessment, re-assessment, collection and enforcement of payment of tax including penalty payable under the CST Act. The words, in the last part of section 9(2) viz.
"shall apply accordingly", relate clearly to the words "and for this purpose"
with the result that the provisions of the State Act shall apply only for the purpose of assessment, reassessment, collection and enforcement. The entire authority of the State machinery is "for this purpose" meaning thereby the purpose of assessing, re-assessing, collecting and enforcing payment of tax including any penalty payable under the Central Act; and they, meaning the State agencies, may exercise powers under the general sales tax law of the State. Section 9(2) of the CST Act only adopts the procedure of the State Act for assessment, re-assessment, collection and enforcement of tax payable under the CST Act. (Khemka & Co. (Agencies) Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra ; B. H. Shah & Co. v. The State of Madras ). The law, which the States' sales tax authorities must apply, is the CST Act. In such application, for procedural purposes alone, the provisions of the State Act are available. (India Carbon Ltd. v. State of Assam ). In view of Section 9(2) of the CST Act, the assessing authority under the VAT Act would, ordinarily, have been the assessing authority under the CST Act also. Section 9(2) of the CST Act uses the words subject to. The phrase subject to conveys the idea of a provision yielding place to another provision or other provisions to which it is made subject. (Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata S. Guram ; South India Corpn. (P) Ltd. v. Secy., Board of Revenue, Trivandrum ). As Section 9(2) of the CST Act is itself subject to the other provisions of the CST Act and the Rules made thereunder, Section 9(2) must yield to the other provisions of the CST Act, and the Rules made thereunder, if they provide otherwise.
Section 13 of the CST Act relates to the power to make rules. Section 13(1) empowers the Central Government to make rules by notification in the official gazette. Section 13(3) enables the State Government to make rules, not inconsistent with the provisions of the CST Act and the Rules made by the Central Government under Section 13(1), to carry out the purposes of the CST Act. In the exercise of the powers conferred by Section 13(3), (4) and (5) of the CST Act, the Central Sales Tax (Andhra Pradesh) Rules, 1957 were made and notified in G.O.Ms.No.302 Revenue dated 23.02.1957. Rule 1 thereof stipulates that these rules may be called the Central Sales Tax (Andhra Pradesh) Rules, 1957. Rule 2[c] of the AP Rules defines appropriate assessing authority to mean, in the case of a dealer who is liable to pay tax under the general sales tax law of the State, the assessing authority under the said law. Rule 14- A(1)(a) requires every dealer registered under Section 7 of the CST Act, and every dealer liable to pay tax under the CST Act, to submit, so as to reach the assessing authority on or before the 20th of every month, a return in Form CST VI showing the total and net turnover of his transactions including those in the course of inter- State trade or commerce during the preceding month, and the amount or amounts collected by way of tax. The return is required to be accompanied by a receipt from a government treasury or a crossed demand draft in favour of the assessing authority for the full amount of tax payable for the month to which the return relates. Rule 14-A(1)(b) requires the dealer to submit to the assessing authority, along with the return mentioned in Rule 14- A(1)(a), the originals of the declarations in Form C, Form-D, Form- E-I & II or Form-F. Rule 14-A (3) stipulates that the return in Form CST VI so filed shall, subject to the provisions of Rule 14- A(4), be provisionally accepted.
Rule 14-A(6) of the AP Rules stipulates that, if no return had been submitted by the dealer or if any return or returns submitted by him appears to the assessing authority to be incorrect or incomplete, the assessing authority shall, after making such enquiry as he considers necessary and after giving the dealer an opportunity of proving the correctness and completeness of the return submitted by him, determine the turnover to the best of his judgment; and finally assess, in a single order, the tax payable under the Act. Rule 14-A(7) stipulates that if, on the final assessment made under Rule 14-A (5) or (6), any tax is found to be due from the dealer, the assessing authority shall serve on him a notice in Form CST VII, and the dealer shall pay the sum demanded in the notice within such time and in such manner as specified therein. Under Rule 14-A(8) if, for any reason, the whole or any part of the turnover of a dealer has escaped assessment to tax, or has been under assessed in any year, the assessing authority may, after issuing a notice to the dealer and after making such enquiry as he considers necessary, determine, to the best of his judgment, the correct turnover, and assess the tax payable on such turnover within the time stipulated therein. Though Rule 2[c] of the AP Rules defines an appropriate assessing authority, the words appropriate assessing authority do not find mention in Rule 14-A, and reference is made therein only to the assessing authority. It is, however, evident from Rule 2[c](i) of the AP Rules itself that the appropriate assessing authority, in the case of a dealer who is liable to pay tax under the VAT Act, shall be the assessing authority under the CST Act. While Section 9(2) of the CST Act makes the authority, empowered to assess under the VAT Act, the assessing authority under the CST Act also, as Section 9(2) has been explicitly made subject to the CST (AP) Rules, the authority to whom returns are to be submitted under the VAT Act, can assess a dealer to tax under the CST Act.
Section 2(24) of the VAT Act defines prescribed to mean prescribed by Rules made under the Act. Section 2(27) defines rules to mean rules made under the Act. Section 20 of the VAT Act relates to returns and self-assessments. Under sub-section (1) thereof, every dealer registered under Section 17 of the Act shall submit such return or returns, along with proof of payment of tax, in such manner, within such time, and to such authority as may be prescribed. Chapter IV of the VAT Rules relates to returns, payments and assessments. Rule 23 relates to tax returns and, under sub-rule (1) thereof, a return to be filed by a VAT dealer under Section 20 shall be in Form VAT 200, and it shall be filed within 20 days after the end of the tax period. The returns shall be complete in duplicate and one copy, with the proof of receipt, shall be retained by the VAT dealer. Form VAT 200 contains, among others, the particulars of the circle and the division. The returns which are required to be submitted, under Section 20(1) of the VAT Act, is to such authority as may be prescribed. Rule 59 of the VAT Rules stipulates that the authorities specified in Column 3 of the table thereunder shall be the authorities prescribed for the purpose of exercising powers specified in Column 2 of the table. Rule 59(1)(3) relates to the power of receipt of VAT returns, and the prescribed authority therefor is (i) the Assistant Commissioner (Large Taxpayer Unit) or any other officer in his office, as duly authorized by him, for the dealers in respect of LTU; or (ii) the Commercial Tax Officer, or any other officer in his office as duly authorized by him, for the dealers in respect of Circle. The Commercial Tax Officer of the Circle is also the prescribed authority to receive VAT returns. Unlike Rule 59(1)(3) which confers power to receive VAT returns on the Commercial Tax Officer of the circle, Rule 59(1)(4)(ii) of the VAT Rules hitherto conferred the power of assessment on the Commercial Tax Officer only if he was authorized by the Deputy Commissioner. Rule 14-A (1)(a) of the AP Rules requires a dealer under the CST Act to submit a monthly return to the assessing authority who, in terms of Rule 59(1)(3) of the VAT Rules, is the Commercial Tax Officer of the circle. The Commercial Tax Officer, before whom the dealer files his monthly CST returns, is therefore empowered to make assessment under the CST Act, and he does not require any authorization from the Deputy Commissioner to do so, unlike the power to make assessment under the VAT Act. Such an authority would also be the assessing authority under Rule 2[c] r/w.Rule 14-A of the AP Rules, notwithstanding that he is not the prescribed authority to make assessment under Section 21 of the VAT Act.
Section 2(4) of the VAT Act defines assessing authority to mean any officer of the commercial tax department authorized by the Commissioner to make any assessment in such area or areas or the whole of the State of Andhra Pradesh. Section 3-A of the VAT Act relates to appointment of officers, and enables the State Government to appoint a Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and as many Additional Commissioners of Commercial Taxes, Joint Commissioners of Commercial Taxes, Appellate Deputy Commissioners of Commercial Taxes, Deputy Commissioners of Commercial Taxes, Assistant Commissioners of Commercial Taxes, Commercial Tax Officers and Deputy Commercial Tax Officers as they think fit, for the purpose of performing the functions respectively conferred on them by or under the Act. Section 3-A also requires the officers specified therein to perform such functions, within such area or areas or the whole of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as the Government, or any authority or officer empowered by them in this behalf, may assign to them. Thus, if either the Government or the authority empowered by the Government assign the functions of assessment on any of the officers referred to in Section 3-A, such officers would be required to perform the said function of making assessment within the specified area or areas. In the exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3-A of the A.P. VAT Act, G.O.Ms. No.1163 dated 14.08.2006 was issued conferring power on the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to require any officer, working under his control, to exercise any powers under the State Act within such area or areas or the whole of the State of A.P. Under the proviso thereto where any officer, in the exercise of the powers delegated to him by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in pursuance of the above orders, undertakes the assessment of any dealer, the assessing authority of the area, having jurisdiction to assess such dealer, shall not exercise such jurisdiction for the relevant period. The said G.O. came into force with retrospective effect from 01.04.2005.
Section 2(4) uses the word authorise. The word authorise means permitted. (Ramanath Aiyer, Advanced Law Lexicon Book 1, Reprint 2007, p.417). Section 3-A of the VAT Act, and Rule 59(1) of the VAT Rules in many of its entries employ the word empower. The word empower means to invest legally or formally with power or to authorize to give official authority or legal power to (Advanced Law Lexicon by Ramanath Aiyer). The term prescribed is used in several provisions of the VAT Act as well as the VAT Rules. Sections 20 and 21, and various Rules including Rule 59(1), use the term prescribed. The authority prescribed is the one prescribed by the Rules. (Sri Balaji Flour Mills2). Section 21 of the VAT Act relates to assessments. Section 21(1) stipulates that where a VAT dealer fails to file a return, in respect of any tax period within the prescribed time, the authority prescribed is required to assess the dealer, for the said period for such default, in the manner prescribed. Section 21(3) enables the prescribed authority, if he is not satisfied with a return filed by the VAT dealer or the return appears to be incorrect or incomplete, to assess the dealer to the best of his judgment. Section 21(4) enables the prescribed authority, based on any information available or on any other basis, to conduct a detailed scrutiny of the accounts of any VAT dealer and, where any assessment as a result of such scrutiny becomes necessary, to then make such assessment. Section 21 confers the power to make assessment specifically on the prescribed authority which, in view of Section 2(24), means the authority prescribed under the Rules. Sl.No.4 of the table, under Rule 59(1), relates to assessments under the VAT Act and, under Sl.No.4(ii)(b), the Commercial Tax Officer or the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, in the case of dealers in the territorial jurisdiction of the circle, as authorized by the Deputy Commissioner concerned shall make assessment under the VAT Act. Sections 3-A, 20 and 21 are the machinery provisions of the VAT Act. While a strict rule of construction is applied to the charging provisions of a taxing statute without implying anything (State of West Bengal v Kesoram Industries Limited ), the machinery sections of a taxing statute must be so construed as to make the statute effective and workable. It is the duty of the Court, while interpreting the machinery provisions of a taxing statute, to give effect to its manifest purpose having a full view of it. A common sense interpretation should be given to the machinery sections so that the charge does not fall. While charging provisions are construed strictly, machinery sections are not generally subject to a rigorous construction. Courts are expected to construe the machinery sections in such a manner that a charge to tax is not defeated. (Sri Balaji Flour Mills2; Whitney v IRC ; Commissioner of Income Tax v Mahaliram Ramjidas A.C.C.Limited v CTO ).
Section 2 (1)(b) of the APGST Act defined assessing authority to mean any person authorized by the State Government, or by any other authority empowered in this behalf, to make any assessment, in such area or areas or the whole of the State of Andhra Pradesh, under the APGST Act. Section 14 thereof empowered the assessing authority to undertake assessment if a return submitted was found to be incorrect. In the exercise of the powers conferred by Section 2(1)(b) of the APGST Act, the Governor of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.728 Revenue dated 14.07.1970 (published in the A.P. Gazette dated 13.08.1970) authorizing (a) the Assistant Commercial Tax Officers to exercise the powers of the assessing authority in the case of dealers whose assessments were transferred to them by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer concerned; (b) the Deputy Commercial Tax Officers to exercise the powers of an assessing authority in the case of dealers whose total turnover was less than Rs.15.00 Lakhs; (c) the Commercial Tax Officers to exercise the powers of an assessing authority in the case of dealers whose total turnover was Rs.15.00 Lakhs or more a year. Under the proviso thereto, any of the higher authorities viz., the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and the Commercial Tax Officer could, in his discretion, exercise the powers of a lower authority within his jurisdiction in respect of any dealer or class of dealers; and the Deputy Commissioner (Commercial Taxes) of the division concerned could, by order, authorize any Deputy Commercial Tax Officer to exercise the powers of an assessing authority in the case of any dealer or class of dealers whose total turnover exceeded Rs.15.00 Lakhs a year.
The APGST Act, 1957 was repealed by Section 80(1) of the VAT Act. However, in view of the proviso thereto, such repeal did not effect the previous operation of the APGST Act or any right, title, obligation or liability already acquired, accrued or incurred thereunder; and, subject thereto, anything done or any action taken (including any appointment, notification etc.) in the exercise of any power conferred by or under the APGST Act must be deemed to have been done or taken in the exercise of the powers conferred by or under the VAT Act, as if the VAT Act was in force on the date on which such thing was done or action was taken. While the assessing authority, as prescribed in GO Ms.No.728 dated 14.07.1970, continues to be the Commercial Tax Officer of the circle even after the VAT Act came into force, the power of assessment under the VAT Act is conferred not on the assessing authority, but on the prescribed authority. It is only the authority, prescribed under Rule 59, who can make assessment under the VAT Act and not the assessing authority under Section 2(4) thereof or in G.O.Ms.No.728 dated 14.07.1970. Unlike the VAT Act, which confers power of assessment on the prescribed authority, the AP Rules confer power of assessment on the assessing authority which, in terms of GO Ms.No.728 dated 14.07.1970 issued in the exercise of the powers conferred under Section 2(1)(b) of the APGST Act, is the Commercial Tax Officer of the concerned circle. As neither Section 2(4) of VAT Act, nor the Commissioner under Section 3-A thereof, have specified who an assessing authority is, the assessing authority under G.O.Ms. No.728 dated 14.07.1970 continues to remain the assessing authority even after the VAT Act came info force in view of the proviso to Section 80 thereof.
Viewed from any angle the contention, urged on behalf of the petitioner, that the Commercial Tax Officer of the circle, before whom the petitioner files his monthly returns, lacks jurisdiction to pass the impugned assessment orders does not merit acceptance. It is made clear that this Court has not examined whether the prescribed authority under Rule 59 of the VAT Rules, who is empowered to make assessment under the VAT Act, can also assess a dealer to tax under the CST Act, as this question does not fall for consideration in these cases. Suffice it to make it clear that the Commercial Tax Officer of the Circle, before whom a dealer files his CST returns, is empowered to assess him to tax under the CST Act.
II. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF AN ASSESSMENT ORDER ADEQUACY OR SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE, BASED ON WHICH THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY RECORDED HIS FINDINGS, CANNOT BE GONE INTO:
Sri S. Ravi, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, would submit that the turnover relating to sale of wooden round logs represented the value of the goods sold to M/s. Radha Industries, Lucknow, India while the goods were on High Seas and, consequently, it was a sale in the course of import; the quadripartite Agreement, entered into between World Best Trading Co. (L.L.C.), Dubai (the Seller), Indus Tropics Limited (Indus) (importer), Vellanki Frameworks (the Petitioner) and Radha Industries, contemplated purchase of goods by the importer from the seller, and purchase of goods from Indus by Radha Industries through the petitioner; the agency agreement, to be executed by Radha Industries in favour of the petitioner, was annexed to it; this agreement entrusted the work of clearance of goods at the port to the petitioner; the petitioner was entitled to 2% commission on the transaction; on the strength of the quadripartite agreement, a purchase order was placed by the importer on the Seller; the seller invoiced the goods to the importer; a Bill of Lading was issued by the shipping carrier; the bill of lading was endorsed by the importer in favour of the petitioner and was, subsequently, endorsed by the Petitioner in favour of Radha Industries while the goods were in high seas; the endorsement was also supported by a High Sea Sale Agreement between the importer and the Petitioner, and a subsequent High Sea Sale Agreement between the Petitioner and Radha Industries; the goods were dispatched from Yangoon (Myanmar), and were received in Vishakhapatnam Port; a bill of entry was filed for ex-bond; customs duty was assessed on Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Agarwal of the petitioner; the goods were cleared by the Petitioner and dispatched to Radha Industries; the assessing authority had examined the documents, and did not adversely comment on any of them; there is no finding that the endorsement on the Bill of Lading is not genuine; the order of Assessment is liable to be set aside as the Quadripartite Agreement, which is not a disputed document, came into existence before the Purchase Order, and before a bill of lading was issued by the shipping line; the ultimate purchaser of the goods, i.e., Radha Industries, was identified even at that stage; the sale, by the Petitioner to Radha Industries, was effected by endorsement of the Bill of Lading in favour of Radha Industries while the goods were still in the customs station as defined in Section 2(13) of the Customs Act, 1962; and, in view of Section 2(ab) of the CST Act, 1956 read with Section 5(2) thereof, as long as the endorsement, and the consequent transfer of title of the goods, had taken place before the goods left the customs station, the sale would be in the course of import. Learned Senior Counsel has referred to the preamble and the provisions of the Indian Bills of Lading Act, 1856, and places reliance on British India Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Shanmughavilas Cashew Industries in this regard.
The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, against the assessment order passed by the first respondent without availing the statutory remedy of appeal. The tax authorities, entrusted with the power to make assessment of tax, discharge quasi- judicial functions, (State of Kerala v. K.T. Shaduli Yousuff ), and their orders are amenable to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. While a writ of certiorari is the appropriate remedy when the validity of a quasi-judicial order is under challenge, the petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus from this Court. It is necessary for us, therefore, to examine the scope of judicial review, of an assessment order, in writ proceedings.
In order that mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that there is a statute which imposes a legal duty and the aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance. (Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanms v. K. Jotheeswara Pillai ; The Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh ; Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sunder Lal Jain ; Lekhraj Satramdas Lalvani v. Deputy Custodian-cum-Managing Officer ; Dr. Rai Shivendra Bahadur v. The Governing Body of the Nalanda College and Dr. Umakant Saran v. State of Bihar ). The duty that may be enjoined by a mandamus may be one imposed by the Constitution, a statute, common law or by rules or orders having the force of law. (Director of Settlements, A.P. v. M.R. Apparao ; Kalyan Singh v. State of U.P. ). In order that a writ of mandamus may be issued, the party asking for the writ must have a legal right to compel the performance of some statutory duty cast upon the authorities. (Oriental Bank of Commerce16). It is not even the petitioners case that the first respondent has failed to perform a statutory duty cast upon him or that the petitioners legal right has been adversely affected. The petitioner is, therefore, not entitled for a writ of mandamus from this Court.
Even for a writ of certiorari to be issued, the tests prescribed therefor must be satisfied. Certiorari, under Article 226 of the Constitution, is issued for correcting gross errors of jurisdiction, i.e., when a subordinate court is found to have acted (i) without jurisdiction - by assuming jurisdiction where there exists none, or
(ii) in excess of its jurisdiction by overstepping or crossing the limits of jurisdiction, or (iii) acting in flagrant disregard of law or the rules of procedure or acting in violation of principles of natural justice where there is no procedure specified, and thereby occasioning failure of justice. (Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai ). In granting a writ of certiorari the superior Court does not exercise the powers of an appellate Tribunal. It does not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior Tribunal purports to be based. It does not take upon itself the task of examining the correctness of the decision or decide what is the proper view to be taken and the order which should be made. It demolishes the order which it considers to be without jurisdiction or palpably erroneous but does not substitute its own views for those of the inferior Tribunal. (T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa ; Rex v. Northumberland Compensation Appellate Tribunal ;
Veerappa Pillai23). The court, issuing a writ of certiorari, acts in the exercise of a supervisory and not an appellate jurisdiction. The court will not review findings of fact reached by the inferior court or tribunal, even if they be erroneous. It is a manifest error apparent on the face of the proceedings, e.g., when it is based on clear ignorance or disregard of the provisions of the law, which can be corrected by certiorari and not a mere wrong decision. (Surya Dev Rai22). Certiorari will not issue as a cloak of an appeal in disguise. It does not lie in order to bring up an order or decision for re-hearing of the issue raised in the proceedings. It exists to correct errors of law when revealed on the face of an order or decision or irregularity or absence of or excess of jurisdiction when shown. (Veerappa Pillai23; Rex24; Hari Vishnu v. Ahmad Ishaque ).
Findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal, on appreciation of evidence, cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that, in recording the said finding, the Tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. A finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in certiorari proceedings on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point, and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding, are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a Writ Court. To be amenable to correction in certiorari jurisdiction, the error committed by the authority, on whose judgment the High Court was exercising jurisdiction, should be an error which is self-evident. If it is reasonably possible to form two opinions on the same material, the finding arrived at, one way or the other, cannot be called a patent error. (Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan ; Ranjeet Singh v. Ravi Prakash ).
Mere formal or technical errors, even though of law, will not be sufficient to attract this extra-ordinary jurisdiction. Where the errors are merely errors in appreciation of documentary evidence or affidavits, errors in drawing inferences or omission to draw inference or in other words errors which a court, sitting as a court of appeal, could only have examined, there is no case for the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226. (Surya Dev Rai24; Nagendra Nath Bora. v. Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam ). It is within this limited parameters can the validity of the impugned assessment orders be examined.
By the impugned orders of assessment, the assessing authority subjected the turnover to tax as inter-state sales under the CST Act holding that in the computer print out of the petitioners trading account, for the year 2005-06, the purchase was shown as purchase trading (high seas), and the relevant sales as sales trading (high seas); in the high sea sales agreement dated 10.12.2005, the petitioner was shown as the buyer; in the subsequent high sea sales agreement dated 12.12.2005 the petitioner was described as the seller; in their letter dated 25.11.2009 the petitioner had claimed exemption on the ground that the sales were effected by transfer of documents of title before the goods had crossed the customs frontiers; the petitioners intention was to sell the goods, and there was a sale; they did not act as the agent of Radha Industries; the petitioner had filed the bill of entry for warehousing and home consumption; customs duty was assessed on the petitioner alone vide bill of entry for ex-bond; sale, subsequent to customs clearance, had alone taken place; the sale took place on 12.01.2006 as shown in the debit note, after the goods had crossed the customs frontiers; after assessment to customs duty is made on filing of the bill of entry, the goods get mingled with the general mass of goods and merchandise of the country attracting the character of local goods; they cease to be foreign goods thereafter; on filing of the bill of entry for warehousing and ex-bond, the petitioner alone was assessed to customs duty; the import stream had dried upon such clearance by the customs authorities; the goods had mixed into the stream of local goods; as is ascertainable from the bills of entry from warehousing and ex-bond, transfer of title had not taken place before filing of the bills of entry and assessment of customs duty; the sale took place after assessment was made on the petitioner, and on their filing the bills of entry; the goods must be held to have crossed the customs frontiers of India, after the bill of entry was made and the goods were assessed to customs duty; thereafter the sales cannot be said to be sales in the course of import or high sea sales; and the transactions, on which the petitioner had claimed exemption as high sea sales, should be treated as inter-state sales falling under Section 3(a) of the CST Act.
In passing the impugned assessment orders, and in subjecting the transactions to tax as an inter-state sale under Section 3(a) of the CST Act, the assessing authority has not taken into consideration the effect of the High Sea sales agreements and other agreements, the bill of lading or the provisions of the Indian Bill of Lading Act. He has held that the sale of goods by the petitioner to Radha Industries (and other outside the State purchasers) was an inter-state sale on the ground that these sales could only have been effected after the petitioner had filed the bill of entry for home consumption, and after he was assessed to customs duty. It is only if these findings are set aside, would the matter necessitate remand, and the assessing authority being directed to consider the other documents relied upon by the petitioner.
III. DOES FILING OF A BILL OF ENTRY BY THE PETITIONER, AND THEIR BEING ASSESSED TO CUSTOMS DUTY, MAKE THE SALE TO RADHA INDUSTRIES AN INTER-STATE SALE?
Sri S. Ravi, Learned Senior Counsel, would submit that the contention of the respondents, that transit ends upon payment of customs duty by the petitioner, and any sale by the petitioner thereafter can only be a sale in India, is erroneous; there is no prohibition under the Customs Act, or the Rules or Regulations made thereunder, for clearance of goods by the holder of an authorization by the endorsee of the Bill of Lading; even otherwise an importer under the Customs Act includes any owner or any person holding himself out to be an importer; as the Bill of lading had been endorsed in his favour, the Petitioner was entitled to and had, in fact, filed the Bill of Entry as an importer; the documents reveal that there were three importers in the present case i.e., Indus Tropics Limited, being the consignee in the Bill of Lading, was the first importer; the Petitioner, as the first endorsee, was the second importer; and Radha Industries, as the second endorsee, was the third importer; the law permits any importer to file a bill of entry under Section 46 of the Customs Act; the Petitioner was entitled to file the bill of entry either as an importer or, in the alternative and as there is no prohibition in law, as an agent of Radha Industries, the ultimate purchaser; under the Customs Act, especially for filing a Bill of Entry, the title and the passage of title are irrelevant considerations; the objective of the said Act is to realize customs duty when the goods are imported, or cross the customs frontiers of the country; the Customs Act allows any owner/importer to file a bill of entry and pay duty; and, consequently, the contention that payment of customs duty by the Petitioner is conclusive of the import having ended, and any sale by the Petitioner thereafter can only be a domestic sale, does not flow from the provisions of the Customs Act or from the assessment order.
Sri P.Balaji Varma, Learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes, would submit that the petitioner alone was assessed to Customs duty; he is therefore the last buyer and owner or importer of the goods; the petitioner was assessed to duty, by virtue of his filing the Bill of Entry, as the importer; the system permitted only the petitioner to file the Bill of Entry as his name alone was recorded in the Import General Manifest (IGM); based on the data made available in the IGM, the Bill of Entry also showed only the name of the foreign seller, the name of the original importer, and the name of the petitioner as the importer being the ultimate buyer; the contents of the Bill of Entry make it clear that there is no high sea sales, subsequent to the high sea sales in favour of the petitioner; the petitioner herein became the last buyer in the importation; as such the petitioner was liable to pay customs duty, and he was rightly assessed; Radha Industries was not assessed to customs duty; while the petitioner could have represented the assessee before the assessing authority, they could not have been assessed for someone else; the petitioner, having been assessed to customs duty, cannot claim that there is a further high sea sale in its hands or that they had got themselves assessed for, and on behalf of, Radha Industries as their agent; accepting the petitioners contention would mean that Radha Industries was the ultimate buyer before the goods crossed the customs frontier, after Purbanchal the original importer, and the Petitioner the subsequent high sea sale purchaser; if Radha Industries was the last buyer during importation, the Import General Manifest (IGM) would have reflected the same; only if the IGM had reflected the name of Radha Industries would they have been entitled to file the bill of entry; only the last buyer i.e., the last importer is liable to be assessed to customs duty; the customs duty is the value of the goods when the vessel enters Indian waters i.e, the value of the goods in the hands of the last buyer i.e, Radha Industries; and the Bill of Entry would then have shown Radha Industries as the importer, and the petitioner as one of the importers along with the names of the original importer i.e, Purbanchal and the export seller M/s. Alkemal; the contention regarding second high sales, to Radha Industries, are not true; the name of Radha Industries is not reflected in the Bill of Entry; Radha Industries was, admittedly, not assessed to customs duty; the value of the goods (even if notional) paid by Radha Industries to the petitioner was not assessed to customs duty; the Bill of Entry was not filed by Radha Industries; a Bill of Entry is generated on the basis of the Import General Manifest; the petitioner is the last buyer/final importer of the goods and, as such, was assessed to customs duty before the goods got mixed with the general goods; since the alleged transactions, between the petitioner and Radha Industries, are not subjected to assessment under the Customs Act, the transaction is not during importation; the inevitable consequence is that the sale of goods by petitioner to Radha Industries is not a sale in the course of import; it is an inter-state sale as Radha Industries is located outside the State of A.P; the facts pleaded do not establish a high-sea sale, but lead to the inevitable conclusion of a inter-state-sale; be it under a principal agent relationship, or under a sale, the main contention of the petitioner is that the goods were transferred on the high seas, and is a high sea sale; their contention is also that they are the transferor and Radha Industries is the transferee; if the petitioner sells goods to M/s Radha Industries, and yet gets himself assessed to customs duty, (assuming such transaction is true), it can only mean that the petitioner and Radha Industries had colluded to evade customs duty on the sale transaction value; the case pleaded before this court, and also before the assessing authority, is that the petitioner had sold goods to Radha Industries as a 2nd High Sea Sale; while a Bill of Entry for warehousing would not result in termination of importation, a Bill of Entry for home consumption terminates the importation; a Bill of Entry for home consumption is submitted only when the Importer intends to get the goods released for home consumption; upon entry of goods in the import manifest (Section 46 of the Customs Act), custom duty is payable at the rates applicable on the date of arrival of the vessel; however, in the case of warehousing, the importation terminates upon filing of the Bill of Entry for Ex-bond for the purpose of home consumption (Section 68 of the Customs Act); and customs duty is paid along with interest, rent etc., till the date of filing of the Bill of Entry for Ex-bond.
(A) IMPORTER OF GOODS UNDER SECTION 2(26) OF THE CUSTOMS ACT:
For a sale to be one in the course of import it has to be either one which has occasioned the import or has been effected by a transfer of documents of title to the goods before the goods have crossed the customs frontiers of India. The words "crossing the customs frontiers of India" is defined, in Section 2 (ab) of the CST Act, to mean crossing the limits of the area of a customs station in which the imported goods or exported goods are ordinarily kept before clearance by customs authorities. Under the Explanation thereto, for the purposes of Section 2(ab), "customs station" and "customs authorities" shall have the same meaning as in the Customs Act, 1962. The Customs frontier, for the purpose of the CST Act, is thus equated to the limits of the area of the customs station in which the goods are stored, crossing of such station being regarded as amounting to crossing the customs frontiers of India. The 'customs station' referred to in Section 2(ab) of the CST Act is the one which is defined under Section 2(13) of the Customs Act to mean any customs port, customs airport or land customs station. Customs Port is defined in Section 2(12) of the Customs Act to mean any port appointed under Section 7(a) thereof to be a customs port and includes a place appointed under clause (aa) of that Section to be an inland container depot. Section 7(a) of the Customs Act enables the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, to appoint the ports and airports which alone shall be the customs ports or customs airports for the unloading of imported goods. The crucial event for the purpose of Section 2 (ab) of the CST Act, and consequently for Section 5(2) thereof, is the crossing the limits of the area of the customs station. (State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu ).
Section 2(23) of the Customs Act defines import, with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, to mean bringing into India from a place outside India. Section 2(25) defines imported goods to mean any goods brought into India from a place outside India but does not include goods which have been cleared for home consumption. Use of the words does not include in Section 2(25) would mean that the moment goods, brought into India from a foreign country, are cleared for home consumption, they get mixed with the local goods and cease to be imported goods thereafter. Going by the definition of the term 'import' under Section 2(25) of the Act as "to bring into India from a place outside India," and as he has imported the goods (his name being reflected in the Bill of Entry as the importer), the petitioner has rightly been held to be the importer.
In ordinary understanding, goods would not be thought to have been imported if they were carried through the territorial waters of the Indian coast by a ship which did not put them into an Indian port. Importation of goods does not take place as soon as the ship carrying them enters the marginal seas, perhaps only to leave them again for navigational purposes as it moves towards the port of discharge. Entry into the port, with the intention of being landed, constitutes importation. (Shri Ramlinga Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Customs ; The Queen v. Bull., ). If the goods are brought into their port of destination for the purpose of being there discharged, the act of importation is complete. On the other hand, the act of importation is not complete if a ship enter some port of call with goods on board which is not the destined port of discharge of those goods. (Shri Ramlinga Mills Pvt. Ltd.30; and Wilson v. Chambers & Co. Ply. Ltd. ). Unless the goods, brought into the country for the purpose of use, enjoyment, consumption, sale or distribution, are incorporated in and get mixed up with the totality of the property in the country, they cannot be said to have been imported. (Shri Ramlinga Mills Pvt. Ltd.30; The Central India Spinning and Weaving and Manufacturing Co., Ltd, The Empress Mills, Nagpur v. The Municipal Committee, Wardha ; K.R. Ahmed Shah v. Additional Collector of Customs, Madras ).
The scheme of the Customs Act is to control the due importation of goods by channelling shipping through proclaimed ports having defined limits, and through bearing stations within the port to appropriate wharfage. The inward cargo is to be reported, the goods are to be unshipped immediately upon importation and, upon the passing of the entry, to be forthwith dealt with in accordance with the terms of the entry. In order to secure due importation, all goods from importation until passed into home consumption or until exportation abroad are subject to customs control. Goods in transit, not intended to be landed, are also subject to that control. An importation is a voluntary arrival within some port with the intention to unload the cargo. (Shri Ramlinga Mills Pvt. Ltd.30; The Queen31). Imports generally take place as a result of transactions between traders in two different countries. Such transactions, in the modern commercial world, mostly partake the character of a sale. That posits, as essential ingredients, an agreement of sale, a passing of consideration and delivery of property. All these are fixed with reference to two distinct contracting parties. A concept of import, therefore, cannot be dissociated with a person exporting the goods and a person who imports them. The ingredients of the term 'import' have to be linked with the importer of the country of destination of the goods. The mere fact that the goods have crossed the customs frontiers in a Port, in which the importer has no intention to have the goods delivered from the ship, will not amount to import for the simple reason that the importer had no intention whatsoever, in relation to those goods, to have access to the goods except at the Port of destination. (Shri Ramlinga Mills Pvt. Ltd.30; Brown v. State of Maryland ). As regards the importer who contracted for the goods, and the carriage thereof to a particular port, the question of importation has to be determined in the light of the statutory provisions but without forgetting the central fact that the importer has intended the goods to be imported at the particular port. Importation takes place only when the vessel has crossed the customs barriers at the intended port of importation. (Shri Ramlinga Mills Pvt. Ltd.30; Muller v. Badurin ).
The importer of the goods is, therefore, the person who brings into India the goods from a place outside. The course of import of goods starts at a point when the goods cross the customs barrier of the foreign country and ends at a point in the importing country after the goods cross the customs barrier. The sale which occasions the import is a sale in the course of import. A purchase by an importer of goods, when they are on the high seas by payment against shipping documents, is also a purchase in the course of import. A sale by an importer of goods, after the property in the goods has passed to him either after receipt of the documents of title against payment or otherwise, to a third party by a similar process is also a sale in the course of import. (J.B. Trading Corporation v. Union of India ).
In view of the definition of the term "import" in Section 2(23) of the Customs Act, and imported goods under Section 2(25), an importer is, ordinarily, the person who brings into India goods from any place outside India. Section 2(26) of the Customs Act does not lay down the statutory meaning of the word importer. The word importer has been defined in Section 2(26) to include, in relation to any goods at any time between their importation and the time when they are cleared for home consumption, any owner or any person who holds himself out to be the importer. What does the word include, in the context of Section 2(26) of the Customs Act, mean? The word include is generally used in interpretation clauses in order to enlarge the meaning of the words or phrases occurring in the body of the statute; and when it is so used those words or phrases must be construed as comprehending, not only such things as they signify according to their natural import, but also those things which the interpretation clause declares that they shall include. (Dadaji v. Sukhdeobabu ; Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. ; Mahalakshmi Oil Mills v. State of A.P. ; Associated Indem Mechanical (P) Ltd. v. W.B. Small Industries Development Corpn. Ltd., ; P.Kasilingam v. P.S.G.College of Technology ). The word includes, as used in Section 2(26), denotes that the word importer may refer to and may comprehend not only what would ordinarily and in common parlance be spoken of as an importer but also, in relation to any goods at any time between their importation and the time they are cleared for home consumption, the owner or a person holding himself out to be an importer. Any ordinary meaning of the word importer is not excluded by Section 2(26), and an extended meaning is to be given thereto. (Carter v. Bradbeer ).
The words, namely, 'at any time between their importation and the time when they are cleared for home consumption' occurring in the second part of Section 2(26) are significant. What does the word importation mean? The word importation is not defined in the Customs Act. It means the commercial activity of buying and bringing in goods from a foreign country. The word importation is defined in Blacks Law Dictionary Sixth Edition as the act of bringing goods and merchandise into a country from a foreign country. (Cunard Steamship Co. v. Mellon ). The word importation is defined in P.Ramanatha Aiyers The Law Lexicon Reprint Edition 2002 as the bringing goods and merchandize into the kingdom from other nations. (Tamlins Law Dic.); a thing is imported when it reaches the borders of the country. If it is imported by water then, as soon as a vessel reaches an Indian port, the process of importation is complete. If the goods are carried by sea and the vessel reaches an Indian port, it is the moment of entry of the vessel which must be held to be the moment of importation of the goods. (Additional Collector of Customs v. Sitaram ; Devichand Jestimal and Co. Bangalore v. Collector of Central Excise, Madras ; Gopal Mayaji v. T.C. Seth ). The date on which the goods arrive in India is the date on which the importation is complete having crossed the customs barrier. But for the expanded definition of importer in Section 2(26), ordinarily, after completion of importation, there cannot be another importer for the very same goods. (J.B. Trading Corporation37). In view of the expanded definition of importer in Section 2(26), while any person who imports goods from a foreign country to India would undoubtedly be an importer, the owner of the goods and a person holding himself out be an importer would also be an importer, however only during the period between the importation of the goods and the time they are cleared for home consumption, and not prior thereto or thereafter. This period is when the goods are warehoused after importation, and are cleared from such warehouse by a person other than the person who actually imported the goods. That limb of the definition of importer, in Section 2(26) of the Customs Act, is designed to protect the interests of the owner or the exporter where the goods have not been claimed or redeemed by the designated importer in India. The definition cannot be used to usurp the identity of an importer from the person who filed the bill of entry. As Section 2(26) is an inclusive definition, the person in whose name the bill of entry is filed does not cease to be the importer. In other words, the person who has secured the release of the goods from the carrier, who has filed the bill of entry, and who has undertaken the work of clearance, continues to be an importer. The bill of entry shows the goods to have been cleared for home consumption by the petitioner who is, therefore, the importer of the goods.
The person who holds himself out to be the importer of the goods must furnish proof of being the importer before the goods are cleared for home consumption. No doubt, Section 2(26) permits any one holding himself out to be the importer between the date of importation and clearance of the goods for home consumption. But here the petitioner, in whose name the goods have been manifested, has, by filing a Bill of Entry, already held himself out to be the importer. As shall be detailed hereinafter, the import manifest has not been amended, the petitioner has filed the Bill of Entry for clearance of the goods for home consumption, and has held himself out to be the importer. In the context of Section 48 of the Customs Act whereunder, if the notified importer does not clear the goods or abandons the goods, the authorities having custody of the goods can only sell the goods by auction, another person cannot be substituted as the importer. The name of the importer cannot be changed in the manifest where fraud is detected in the import as any such amendment is impermissible under Section 30(3) of the Customs Act. If the contention of the petitioner, that any person can file a bill of entry for clearance of goods for home consumption, is accepted, the importer can easily substitute himself by some other person, to file the bill of entry for clearance, whenever any consignment is liable for confiscation for violation of the provisions of the Customs Act. (J.B. Trading Corpn.37). It is evident, therefore, that, before its importation, it is only the person who imported the goods who would be the importer. If, as contended by the petitioner, they had sold the goods on high seas to Radha, it is only Radha who would be the importer and not the petitioner. The very fact that the name of Radha is not reflected as the importer in the bill of entry ex-bond (home consumption) belies the petitioners contention of a high sea sale by them to Radha Industries.
(B). AN IMPORT GENERAL MANIFEST WOULD REFLECT THE NAME OF THE IMPORTER:
To regulate and have effective control on imports, the Customs Act enjoins certain liabilities on the carriers. They are required to bring in the imported cargo into the country for unloading only at the notified ports/airports/Land Customs Stations (Section 29); and furnish detailed information to Customs about the goods brought in for unloading at that particular port. The cargo must be declared in terms of an Import General Manifest (IGM) prior to arrival of the vessel/aircraft at the Customs station (Section 30). Ordinarily, unloading of cargo cannot be undertaken from any vessel unless the IGM is furnished in the prescribed form. After the IGM is delivered, unloading takes place under the supervision of Customs Officers.
Section 2(24) of the Customs Act defines import manifest to mean the manifest required to be delivered under Section 30. Chapter-VI of the Customs Act contains provisions relating to the conveyance carrying imported goods. Section 30(1) requires the person-in-charge of the vessel carrying imported goods to deliver to the proper officer an import manifest prior to the arrival of the vessel. Section 30(2) requires the person, delivering the import manifest at the foot thereof, to make and subscribe to a declaration as to the truth of its contents. In terms of the Import Manifest (Vessels) Regulations, 1971, any person, who delivers the import manifest for a vessel to the proper officer under Section 30 of the Customs Act is required to be registered with Customs. The importer can either handle the import clearance documents himself or appoint a Custom House Agent (CHA) licensed in terms of the CHA Licensing Regulations. Section 146 of the Customs Act requires Customs house agents to be licensed and, under sub- section (1) thereof, no person shall carry on business as an agent, relating to the entry or departure of a conveyance or the import or export of goods at any customs-station, unless such person holds a licence granted in this behalf in accordance with the regulations. An obligation is cast on the Custom House Agent, acting on behalf of the importer, to comply with Section 30 of the Act. (J.B. Trading Corporation37).
Section 30(3) of the Customs Act read with the Levy of Fee (Customs Documents) Regulations, 1970, allows the proper officer to permit an IGM to be amended or supplemented, on payment of prescribed fees, if he is satisfied that there is no fraudulent intention. The Central Board of Excise and Customs has provided for two broad categories of amendments Major and Minor. The major amendments include changing the Importers/consignees name. Section 32 stipulates that no imported goods, required to be mentioned in an import manifest or import report, shall, except with the permission of the proper officer, be unloaded at any customs station unless they are specified in such manifest or report for being unloaded at that customs station. In the exercise of the powers conferred by Section 157 of the Customs Act, the Central Board of Excise and Customs made the Import Manifest (Vessels) Regulations, 1971. Regulation 3 thereof relates to the import manifest and, under sub-regulation (1) thereof, every import manifest shall (a) be delivered in duplicate; (b) cover all the goods carried in a vessel; and (c) consist of, among others, a cargo declaration in Form III. Regulation 5 prescribes the manner of declaring cargo and, under sub-regulation (1)(a) thereof, the cargo declaration shall be delivered in separate sheets in respect of each of the categories of cargo, viz, the cargo to be landed. The cargo declaration form contains, among others, the name of the ship, the port of loading, the bill of lading number, the number and kinds of packages, description of goods, name of the consignee/importer, the date of presentation of the bill of entry, the name of the customs house agent etc. As shall be referred to in detail hereinafter, the bill of entry submitted by the petitioner, in terms of the Bill of Entry (Electronic Declaration) Regulations, 1995, records the Import General Manifest number and date as 423/2006 dated 13.04.2006. The Import General Manifest contains a cargo declaration wherein, among others, the name of the importer, the importers code number, IGM number and date are required to be detailed. It is not even the petitioners case that his name is not reflected as the importer in the Import General Manifest. If, as is now contended by him, the goods had been sold on the high seas, the Import General Manifest should have reflected the name of the last high sea sale purchaser as the importer. Otherwise, the Import General Manifest would have necessitated amendment as it is only the last purchaser of the goods on high seas who would be the importer/consignee. There is no material on record to show that either the Import General Manifest contained the name of Radha as the importer/consignee or that it was subsequently amended in terms of Section 30(3) of the Customs Act. It is evident, therefore, that the contention of high seas sales has been raised by the petitioner only to avoid the goods being subjected to tax as inter- state sales under the CST Act.
[C] BILL OF ENTRY EX-BOND/FOR HOME CONSUMPTION ITS SCOPE:
Section 45(1) of the Customs Act requires all imported goods unloaded in a customs area to remain in the custody of the person, approved by the Commissioner of Customs, until they are cleared for home consumption or are warehoused. Section 46(1) requires the importer of the goods to make an entry thereof by presenting to the proper officer a bill of entry for home consumption or warehousing in the prescribed form. Section 46(3) requires a bill of entry, under sub-section (1), to be presented at any time after the delivery of the import manifest. Section 46(4) requires the importer, while presenting a bill of entry, to make and subscribe, at the foot thereof, a declaration as to the truth of the contents of such bill of entry and, in support of such declaration, to produce to the proper officer the invoice, if any, relating to the imported goods. Section 47 relates to clearance of goods for home consumption and, under sub-section (1) thereof, where the proper officer is satisfied that any goods entered for home consumption are not prohibited goods, and the importer has paid the import duty, if any, assessed thereon and any charges payable under the Act in respect thereof, he may make an order permitting clearance of the goods for home consumption. Under the proviso to Section 149, no amendment of a bill of entry shall be authorised after the imported goods have been cleared for home consumption or deposited in a warehouse, except on the basis of documentary evidence which was in existence at the time the goods were cleared or deposited as the case may be.
Section 49 relates to storage of imported goods in a warehouse pending clearance and, thereunder, where in the case of any imported goods, whether dutiable or not, entered for home consumption, the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of Customs is satisfied, on the application of the importer, that the goods cannot be cleared within a reasonable time, the goods may, pending clearance, be permitted to be in a warehouse, but such goods shall not be deemed to be warehoused goods for the purposes of the Act and, accordingly, the provisions of Chapter-IX shall not apply to such goods. Section 68 relates to clearance of warehoused goods for home consumption and, thereunder, the importer of any warehoused goods may clear them for home consumption if (a) a bill of entry for home consumption in respect of such goods has been presented in the prescribed form;
(b) the import duty levibale on such goods and all penalties, rent, interest and other charges payable in respect of such goods have been paid; and (c) an order for clearance of such goods for home consumption has been made by the proper officer.
For clearance of the goods, offloaded at the port, the importer has the option either to clear the goods for home consumption after payment of customs duties, or to clear them for warehousing, without immediate discharge of customs duties, in terms of the warehousing provisions of the Customs Act. For this purpose every importer is required to file, in terms of the Section 46, a Bill of Entry for home consumption or warehousing, as the case may be, in the form prescribed by the Regulations. The Bill of Entry is to be submitted in sets, different copies meant for different purposes. The Bill of Entry contains, among others, the name of the customs house agent, his address and licence number, the customs house agent code, the importers code, the Import-Export Code (IEC) number, importers name and address, the name of the vessel, the country of origin, the country of assignment, the bill of lading and its date, the particulars of the goods, invoice particulars, customs duty paid etc. Certain documents are also required to be submitted with the Bill of Entry. The correctness of the information has also to be certified by the importer in the form of a declaration at the foot of the Bill of Entry, and any mis- declaration/incorrect declaration has legal consequences.
In the exercise of the powers conferred by Section 157 read with Section 46 of the Customs Act, the Central Board of Excise and Customs made the Bill of Entry (Electronic Declaration) Regulations, 1995. Regulation 2(a) thereof defines authorized person to mean (i) the Customs House Agent who holds a permanent licence under the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984, and is authorised by the Commissioner of Customs with a user identification; or (ii) an importer who holds a valid Import Export Code number, and is specially authorized by the Commissioner of Customs with a user identification for the purpose of obtaining clearance of goods imported by him. Regulation 2(b) defines bill of entry to mean the electronic declaration accepted and assigned with a number by the Customs Computer system for further processing. Regulation 2(d) defines electronic declaration to mean the declaration of the particulars relating to the imported goods, lodged in the Customs Computer System, through the data-entry facility provided at the service centre or the data communication networking facility provided by the National Informatics Centre. Regulation 3 requires the authorised person to furnish, for the purpose of clearance of the imported goods, a cargo declaration in the format set out in Appendix-A to the regulations, and such other information as may be necessary for preparing an electronic declaration of the bill of entry. Regulation 5 stipulates that the data entry shall be deemed to be complete when the option to lodge the electronic declaration in the Customs Computer System is exercised, and the declaration is accepted by the System. Regulation 8 requires the authorised person, after completion of assessment of the bill of entry, to obtain three copies of the print-out of the assessed bill of entry from the service centre. Such person is required to sign the copies of the print-out, indicating his name and designation at the space provided for the purpose affirming the truth of the contents recorded on the assessed bill of entry. He is required, thereafter, to present the same along with copies of challans evidencing payment of duty, and other supporting import documents in original, relating to the goods referred to in the bill of entry, for the examination of the said goods by the proper officer and for the issue of the order permitting clearance of the said goods for home consumption or warehousing. Regulation 10 requires the authorised person to obtain a declaration from the importer affirming the truth of the contents of documents relating to the imported goods sought to be cleared in duplicate, and to present one copy in original to the proper officer at the time of submission of the bill the of entry, and to retain one copy with him for his records. Regulation 11 requires the original print-out of the bill of entry to be retained by the proper officer and the duplicate and the triplicate print-outs to be returned to the importer.
Appendix-A, referred to in Regulation 3 above, contains details of the cargo declaration. Among the details to be furnished therein, are the importers code, the clearing house agents code, port of shipment, country of origin, country of consignment, IGM number and date, number of packages, its gross weight, invoice details, the nature of the transaction (sale/consignment/ hire/gift/others), the terms of payment (LC/FOC/DP/SD/others), conditions attached with the sale (if any), and whether the buyer and seller are related. The said form also contains a declaration certifying that the aforesaid documents, and the information therein, are true and correct. The said declaration is required to be signed either by the importer or the clearing house agent.
This Bill of Entry is subject to verification by the proper officer of Customs (under the self assessment scheme), and may be re-assessed if the declaration is found to be incorrect. The first stage for processing a Bill of Entry is termed as the noting/registration of the Bill of Entry vis--vis the IGM filed by the carrier. The import clearance documents are tallied with the related IGM to ensure that the goods, sought to be cleared, have been declared in the particular IGM of the vessel/aircraft mentioned in the Bill of Entry. The Bill of Entry is checked with the consignment sought to be cleared having been manifested in the particular vessel, and a Bill of Entry number is generated and indicated on all copies. After noting, the Bill of Entry is sent to the appraising section of the Custom House for assessment, payment of duty etc. The Bill of Entry and the related particulars/information are scrutinized, among others, to determine the value, classification and duties leviable on the imported goods. After the bill of entry is filed, the customs officer assesses the customs duty liability, and the said sum is required to be paid by the importer as customs duty.
The authorized person, entitled to furnish a cargo declaration in terms of Regulation 3 read with Appendix-A and to present various documents as stipulated in the Bill of Entry (Electronic Declaration) Regulations, 1995, is either the clearing house agent or the importer and none else. In terms of Regulation 2(a) thereof, the Clearing House Agent must have a permanent licence and the importer a valid Importer-Export Code number. Both of them are also required to be authorized by the Commissioner of Customs with an user identification. The user identification number is required for the importer to obtain clearance of the goods imported by him. It is evident, therefore, that it is either the Clearing House Agent or the Importer who alone can clear the imported goods for home consumption. In this context, it is useful to refer to the contents of one of the Bills of Entry enclosed along with W.P.No.6258 of 2010. The head of the said Bill of Entry refers to Indian Customs EDI System. Under the column importer details, the Code No. is stated as 2605001091 and the PAN No. as ABMPA8919R. The name of the importer is shown therein as Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, Vellanki Frame Works. The IGM number and date are recorded as 423/2006 dated 13.04.2006. The port of loading is shown as Yangon and the country of origin as Myanmar. The bill number is recorded as GCTC No.5310611 and the bill date as 08.04.2006. The number of packages is shown therein as 155 pcs. The invoice number and date is recorded as 209/2006 dated 11.04.2006 of M/s.Alkemal Singapore Private Limited. The invoice value is shown as 1,31,500.29 US Dollars and the HSS as Original Importer No.37000009100 Purbanchal Lumbars Pvt. Ltd. The Bill of Entry records the name of Srinivasa Transports as the clearing house agent, and their number as DDC No./DT.Officer:2100/03-05- 2006/TKESAV. The declaration thereunder is signed both by Sri Sanjiv Kumar Agarwal as the importer and Srinivasa Transports as the clearing house agent. It is evident, from the said Bill of Entry, that the goods were imported by the petitioner, and were cleared from customs with the assistance of the customs house agent M/s.Srinivasa Transports. If, as contended by the petitioner, the goods were sold by them to M/s.Radha Industries on high seas, and before the goods entered the customs port, the name of the importer should have been shown as Radha Industries, and not as Sanjiv Kumar Agarwal, Vellanki Frameworks. The fact that the name of the importer is shown as Sanjiv Kumar Agarwal, Vellanki Frameworks, and the Bill of Entry makes no reference to Radha Industries, goes to show that the goods were imported by the petitioner on a high sea sale effected in their favour by Purbanchal Lumbers Private Limited; it is they who had imported the goods; and sale of goods by them to Radha Industries could only have been effected after the goods had been cleared for home consumption.
(D). CAN AN AGENT FILE A BILL OF ENTRY IN HIS NAME?
The functions and responsibilities of the CHA, as an Agent, are limited to arranging release of the goods, and once the goods are cleared he has no further responsibilities to discharge. Section 147 relates to the liability of principal and agent and, under sub- section (1) thereof, where the Customs Act requires anything to be done by the owner or importer of any goods, it may be done on his behalf by his agent. Section 147(2) stipulates that any such thing done by an agent of the owner or importer of any goods shall, unless the contrary is proved, be deemed to have been done with the knowledge and consent of such owner or importer so that, in any proceedings under this Act, the owner or importer of the goods shall also be liable as if the thing had been done by himself. The reference to the agent under Section 147 of the Customs Act is to the agent of the Principal i.e. power of attorney holder of the importer and where the relationship of "master and servant" comes into play. In such cases the act of an agent is held to be the act of the Principal. The CHA acts under separate Regulations and his function, under the licence, is only to present papers for clearance of imported goods under a Bill of Entry and not to act as an contemplated under Section 147 of the Act. (Collector of Customs, Cochin v. Trivandrum Rubber Works Ltd ). The provisions of Section 147 of the Customs Act are attracted where anything which the Act requires to be done by an importer or owner is done by any other person at his instance. The procedure relating to clearance of the goods, including production of a valid licence for clearance, are required to be complied with by the importer. The word "owner" is used, both in Section 2(26) and Section 147 of the Customs Act, since the owner of the imported goods is required to perform certain acts under the Customs Act. Section 63 obligates the owner of the warehoused goods to pay warehouse rent and warehouse charges. Section 64 empowers the owner to deal with such goods, and Section 65 enables the owner to carry out manufacturing process and other operations.
Section 147(3) of the Customs Act provides that, when any person is expressly or impliedly authorised by the importer to be his agent in respect of such goods for all or any of the purposes under the Act, such person shall, without prejudice to the liability of the owner or importer, be deemed to be the owner or importer. The proviso to Section 147(3), however, makes it clear that where any duty is, inter alia, short-levied for a reason other than any wilful act, negligence or default of the agent, the agent shall not be liable for payment of that duty, save and except where, in the opinion of the Assistant Collector of Customs, the duty cannot be recovered from the owner or the importer. Section 147(3) read with the proviso specifies circumstances in which the clearing agent can be treated as the owner/importer of the goods and made liable for the payment of duty. (Trivandrum Rubber Works Ltd48). On a conjoint reading of Sections 12, 28 and 147 of the Customs Act, it is clear that, in cases in which duty had not been levied, the owner should be called upon to pay customs duty. It is only if the amount cannot be recovered from the owner, can it be collected from the agent. (Pilmen Agents (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Madras ).
If, as contended by him, the petitioner was merely acting as an agent, the bill of entry would have reflected the name of the importer as M/s.Radha Industries and the petitioner as their agent instead of M/s. Srinivasa Traders as the clearing house agent; and the petitioners name would have been recorded in the bill of entry, along with Purbanchal Lumbers Private Limited. The very fact that the name of the importer is shown as Sanjiv Kumar Agarwal, Vellanki Frameworks, and the Bill of Entry makes no reference to Radha Industries, shows that the goods were imported by the petitioner, on the goods being sold to them on high seas by Purbanchal Lumbers Private Limited. Sale of goods by them to Radha Industries could only have been effected after the goods had been cleared for home consumption.
(E). CUSTOMS DUTY CAN BE ASSESSED ONLY ON THE IMPORTER OF THE GOODS AND NOT HIS AGENT:
Duties, according to the practice of most commercial nations, are charged only on those articles which are intended for sale or consumption in the country. Thus goods imported and re- exported in the same vessel, but not for sale, are exempt from the payment of duties. Sale is the object of importation, and is an essential ingredient of that intercourse, of which importation constitutes a part. It is as essential an ingredient as importation itself. Import is not merely the bringing into, but comprises something more i.e. incorporating and mixing up of the goods imported with the mass of the property in the local area. (Brown35; The Central India Spinning and Weaving and Manufacturing Co., Ltd.33). Though customs duties are levied with reference to goods, the taxable event is the import of goods within the customs barriers. The imposition of an import duty, by and large, results in a condition which must be fulfilled before the goods can be brought inside the customs barriers i.e. before they form part of the mass of goods within the country. (Shri Ramlinga Mills Pvt. Ltd.30; In re : Sea Customs Act (1878) ).
Section 12(1) of the Customs Act stipulates that customs duty shall be levied, at such rates as may be specified under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 or any other law for the time being in force, on the goods imported into India. Under Section 14(1), the value of the imported goods shall be the transaction value of such goods ie the price actually paid or payable for the goods when sold for import to India for delivery at the time and place of importation where the buyer and seller of the goods are not related and price is the sole consideration for the sale subject to such other conditions as may be specified in the rules made in this behalf. Under the first proviso thereto such transaction value, in the case of imported goods, shall include, in addition to the price as aforesaid, any amount paid or payable for costs and services, including commission and brokerage, engineering, design work, royalties and licence fees, cost of transportation to the place of importation, insurance, loading, unloading and handling charges to the extent, and in the manner, specified in the Rules made in this behalf. The value of the imported goods, for the purpose of levy of Customs Duty, is required to be determined in terms of Section 14 of the Customs Act read with the Customs Valuation (Determination of Prices of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. Section 15(1) stipulates that the rate of duty and tariff valuation, if any applicable to any imported goods, shall be the rate and valuation in force (a) in the case of goods entered for home consumption under Section 46, on the date on which a bill of entry in respect of such goods is presented under that section; (b) in the case of goods cleared from a warehouse under Section 68, on the date on which a bill of entry for home consumption in respect of such goods is presented under that section; [c] in the case of any other goods, on the date of payment of duty. Section 17 relates to assessment of duty and, under sub-section (1) thereof, after an importer has entered any imported goods under Section 46, the goods may, without undue delay, be examined and tested by the proper officer. Section 17(2) stipulates that, after such examination and testing, the duty, if any, leviable on such goods shall be assessed.
If, as contended by the petitioner, they had effected sales on high seas it is the person, who purchased the goods from them, who would the last purchaser before the goods were cleared for home consumption; and it is on the value of such sale, and on such a purchaser who imported the goods, would customs duty have been levied under the Customs Act. While the goods can also be cleared by a customs house agent, or by the agent of the principal, it is only the importer who can be assessed to customs duty. No sooner than the goods become imported goods, they become chargeable to duty. Upto the moment they are cleared for home consumption, they constitute imported goods for the purpose of the Customs Act. As soon as they are cleared for home consumption, they cease to be imported goods. (Apar Pvt Ltd. v. Union of India ; Associated Forest Products (P) Ltd. v. Asst. Collector of Customs ; S.K. Gupta v. K.P. Jain ). Transfer of title to the goods on high seas would make the person, who purchased the goods on high seas, the importer of the goods and it is he who would be liable to be assessed to customs duty. As the Bill of Entry records the petitioners name as the importer, and as it is not in dispute that it was he who was assessed to customs duty, and not Radha, it is evident that the sale of goods by the petitioner to Radha is not a high seas sale. Such a sale could only have been effected after the petitioner was assessed to customs duty, and he had cleared the goods for home consumption. (F). DO THE OBSERVATIONS IN MINERALS AND METAL TRADING CORPORATION, THAT THE NAME IN THE BILL OF ENTRY IS IRRELEVANT, CONSTITUTE A BINDING PRECEDENT?
Sri S.Ravi, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would submit that, as held in Minerals & Metals Trading Corporation of India Ltd., v. State of Andhra Pradesh , the circumstance as to who is filing the bill of entry is not a material circumstance; and the name on the bill of entry is irrelevant because the name of the importer alone will be recorded in it, even if the transfer of title deeds is effected before filing of the bill of entry and assessment of duty under Section 28 of the Customs Act.
In Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation of India Ltd.54, the assessee claimed exemption on a part of the turnover as sales in the course of import under Section 5(2) of the CST Act, contending that it had imported goods from foreign parties and, as it had transferred the bills of lading in favour of the local buyers before the customs clearance of goods was effected, they were sales in the course of import under the second limb of Section 5 (2) read with Section 2 (ab) of the CST Act. The Commercial Tax Officer disallowed the exemption holding that the crucial date, for the purpose of determining exemption, is the date of arrival of the vessel; and no exemption could be claimed as the original statement of facts issued by the Master of the ship was not filed. The petitioner had filed the certificates issued by the customs authorities indicating the time of customs clearance in respect of most of the shipments. The Commercial Tax Officer disallowed the exemption on some shipments on the ground that the time was not recorded on the copies, of the letters from the customs, acknowledging the bill of lading. In appeal, the Appellate Deputy Commissioner took the date of "arrival of the vessel at the port" as relevant, and disallowed the exemption on the ground that the bill of lading had been transferred subsequent to the date of arrival of the vessel at the port, ignoring the date of effecting the customs clearance of the goods. On further appeal, the Tribunal held that it was enough if the goods had crossed the outer limit of the customs clearance, and it was not necessary that it had to cross the inner limit also. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner filed T.R.Cs before the High Court contending that the goods were transferred by transferring the bills of lading in favour of the respective purchasers; and, since the transfer was effected before clearance of the goods, the provisions of the APGST Act were not applicable, by virtue of Section 38 of the Act, as it was a sale occasioned in the course of import of the goods into the territory of India, by transfer of documents of title before the goods had crossed the customs frontiers of India. On the other hand the case of the Revenue was that, since the transfer was effected after the goods had crossed the limits of the area of the customs authorities in which the imported goods were ordinarily kept before clearance by the customs authorities, the transaction fell outside Section 5(2) read with Section 2(ab) of the CST Act. It is in this context that the Division Bench held:-
..A reading of Section 5 (2) makes it clear that if the sale is effected by a transfer of documents of the goods before the goods have crossed the customs frontiers of India then a sale or purchase of goods is deemed to have taken place in the course of import of the goods into the Indian territory. Crossing the customs frontiers is defined under Section 2(ab) according to which crossing the limits of the area of customs station where goods are ordinarily kept before clearance by the customs authorities amounts to crossing the customs ' frontiers. Under the explanation, the customs station and customs authorities have the same meaning as in the Customs Act. Customs station is defined under the Customs Act as any customs port, customs airport, or land customs station. Customs port means any port appointed under Section 7(a) and includes a place appointed under clause (aa) of that section to be an inland container report. Customs airport means any airport appointed under clause (a) of Section 7. Land customs station means any place appointed under. Section 7(b), A reading of Section 2(ab) makes it clear that if the goods crosses the area of the customs station viz., the customs port which is notified under Section 7 of the Act, where the goods are kept before clearance and if the transfer is effected by transfer of documents of title then it amounts to sale in the course of import.
In other words if the goods are kept in the port before clearance, crossing the limits of that port amounts to sale in the course of import. ..We have already referred to Section 5(2) read with Section 2(ab). The goods will cross the limit of the area of the customs station only on clearance by the customs authorities. Clearance by the customs authorities will be after filing the bill of entry and after the assessment of duty under Section 38 of the Act. Before the assessment of the duty the goods kept in the customs port cannot cross the limits of the customs port. Therefore irrespective of the fact whether duty is paid or not, when once the bill of entry is filed and the imported duty is assessed, then only the goods can cross the limits of the customs port, therefore, any transfer of documents of title before the clearance of the goods by the customs authorities on making the assessment of goods would amount to a sale in the course of import, as after the assessment is made and on filing of the bill of entry the goods get mingled with the general mass of goods and merchandize of the country. The goods get the eligibility to be declared as local goods after clearance, even though they are not physically removed from the harbour premises. They attain the character of local goods and cease to be foreign goods. Therefore, the relevant point of time for determining as to whether the sale of goods is in the course of import by a transfer of title deeds is the transfer by title deeds before filing the bill of entry and the assessment of duty irrespective of the fact whether the goods are physically cleared from the harbour or not and whether duty is paid or not. As pointed out in the earlier paras after the filing of the bill of entry the assessment of the duty the import stream dries up and ceases to flow after the customs department levies the duty declaring the eligibility of the goods to be cleared and mingles with the general mass of goods and merchandise in the country. Once the duty is levied the import is at an end and the national customs barrier is supposed to have been crossed. The reason being it is difficult to ascertain the point of time or the place at which the goods have entered the limits of the customs port. Therefore, the assessing authorities under the APGST Act docs not get jurisdiction to assess the goods if the transfer of title deeds is effected before the clearance of goods by filing the bill of entry under the Customs Act and after making the assessment of the import duty payable under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 (emphasis supplied) Having so held, the Division Bench remanded the T.R.Cs. to the assessing authority for the purpose of determining as to when the transfer of goods by title deeds was effected, whether it was before filing of the bill of entry and assessing the duty or after filing the bill of entry and assessment of duty under the Customs Act. Thereafter, the Division Bench held as under:-
We also point out that the name on the bill of entry is irrelevant because the name of the importer alone will be recorded in it even if the transfer by title deeds is effected before filing the bill of entry and assessment of duty under Section 28. We have to make this clear because the taxing authorities tend to raise such doubts though the amendment was specifically made to have a clear cut off time to determine when the import ends. Therefore, let it be declared that if the transfer of title deeds is effected before filing the bill of entry and making the assessment then the sale is deemed to have been effected in the course of import, otherwise not. In the light of the above, the assessing authorities are directed to hold an enquiry and decide in each case, whether the transfer is before filing the bill of entry and making assessment of duty or thereafter. The TRCs are accordingly disposed of. (emphasis supplied) The quotable in law is avoided and ignored if it is rendered in ignoratium of a statute or other binding authority. (Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd ). A decision passes sub-silentio, when the particular point of law involved in the decision is not perceived by the court or present to its mind. (Salmond on Jurisprudence 12th Edn., p. 153). A decision rendered without any argument, without reference to the crucial words of the rule and without any citation of the authority is not a binding precedent. (Lancaster Motor Company (London) Ltd. v. Bremith Ltd ). A decision, which is neither founded on reasons nor it proceeds on a consideration of an issue, cannot be deemed to be a law declared to have a binding effect. That which escapes in the judgment without any occasion is not the ratio decidendi. A decision is binding not because of its conclusions but in regard to its ratio, and the principles laid down therein. Any declaration or conclusion arrived without application of mind or preceded without any reason cannot be deemed to be the declaration of law or authority of a general nature binding as a precedent. (Jaisri Sahu v. Rajdewan Dubey ; Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur ; B. Shama Rao v. Union Territory of Pondicherry ; State of U.P. v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. ). Any declaration or conclusion arrived at without being preceded by any reason, cannot be deemed to be the declaration of law or authority of a general nature binding as a precedent. (Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd.,60; B. Shama Rao59). A mere direction of the Court without considering the legal position is not a precedent. (Vishnu Dutt Sharma v. Manju Sharma ). The view, if any, expressed without analysing the statutory provision cannot be treated as a binding precedent. (N. Bhargavan Pillai v. State of Kerala ).
Passing observations in a judgment, without any argument and without reason, do not form part of the ratio; they cannot be treated as having the weight of authority or as constituting a binding precedent. Mere casual expressions carry no weight at all. Not every passing expression of a Judge, however eminent, can be treated as an ex-cathedra statement having the weight of authority (Gurnam Kaur58; Bengal Club Ltd. v. Susanta Kumar Chowdhury ). A decision is only an authority for what it actually decides. (Union of India v. Dhanwanti Devi ; State of Orissa v. Mohd. Illiyas ; ICICI Bank v. Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay ; State of Orissa v. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra ; Quinn v. Leathem ). Observations, on matters not in issue in the case, are not meant to be and ought not to be regarded as laying down the law. (K. Veeraswami v. Union of India ). The view, if any, expressed without analysing the statutory provision cannot be treated as a binding precedent. (N. Bhargavan Pillai62). A decision not expressed and accompanied by reasons, and not preceded by a conscious consideration of the issue, cannot be deemed to be a law declared to have binding effect. (Arnit Das v. State of Bihar ; M.R. Apparao20; Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd.60; B. Shama Rao59).
The law declared by the Division Bench, in Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation of India Ltd.54, is that when the goods are assessed to duty by the Customs Authorities, after the bill of entry is filed, the importation is completed even if duty is not paid, and the goods remain within the customs station; it is only after the Bill of Entry is filed, and the import duty is assessed, can the goods cross the limits of the Customs Station; transfer of documents of title before clearance of goods by the Customs authorities, but after assessment of goods, would not amount to a sale in the course of import irrespective of whether duty is paid or not; on assessment to customs duty, after the Bill of Entry is filed, the goods get mingled with the general mass of goods and merchandise in the country; and physical movement of goods out of the customs station, and the time at which the duty is paid, would not be relevant.
The questions, whether the name on the bill of entry is relevant or not, and whether or not the name of the importer alone will be recorded in the Bill of Entry even if transfer by title deeds is effected before filing the bill of entry and assessment of duty under Section 28 of the Customs Act, did not arise for consideration in Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation54. The observations of the Division bench in this regard are not preceded by an analysis of the relevant provisions of the Customs Act nor is it supported by any reason. These observations are, therefore, not a declaration of law binding on a co-ordinate bench. The assessing authority is, therefore, justified in holding that sale of goods by the petitioner to Radha Industries is not a sale in the course of import, but an inter-state sale liable to tax under the CST Act.
IV. DID THE SALE IN FAVOUR OF RADHA INDUSTRIES, LUCKNOW OCCASION MOVEMENT OF GOODS INTO THE COUNTRY?
Sri S. Ravi, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would submit that the entire import of the goods was occasioned by the ultimate sale in favour of Radha Industries by the Petitioner; although the documents executed referred to the sale as a High Sea Sale, in as much as the very sale itself occasioned the movement of goods across the customs barrier, the sale is a sale in the course of import; and though the case was not presented in this light before the Assessing Officer, it is a pure question of law and can be considered even now.
On the other hand Sri P. Balaji Varma, Learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes, would submit that the petitioners contentions in the writ affidavit are inconsistent, contradictory and contrary to law; the contentions urged in the written submissions show that the petitioner now claims that there is no high sea sale to M/s. Radha Industries; the said contentions are inconsistent with the averments in the writ petition; Sale and no-sale being opposite to each other and the petitioner, being the master of his transaction, is not entitled to take opposite stands; these contentions are an afterthought made only for the purpose of evading tax; this contention is contrary to their other contentions, and the material on record; the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone; the petitioners contention that the import is as a consequence of the master agreement, the import was occasioned due to the purchase by M/s. Radha Industries, and it is a case of import under Section 5(2) is not tenable; the law requires the last buyer/last importer to file the Bill of Entry; the Bill of Entry requires the names of all the parties to be mentioned therein i.e, the export seller, the original importer, the high sea buyer(s) if any, and the last buyer/importer; and the circumstances and facts pleaded, both before the Assessing Authority and before this Court, do not make out a case of direct import by M/s. Radha Industries.
Under Section 5(2) of the CST Act, the sale or purchase of goods shall be deemed to take place in the course of import of the goods into the territory of India only if the sale or purchase either occasions such import or is effected by a transfer of documents of the title to the goods before the goods have crossed the customs frontiers of India. Section 5(2) has two limbs, the first of which is attracted if the sale or purchase occasions the import, and the second is applicable when the sale or purchase is effected by a transfer of documents of title to the goods before the goods have crossed the customs frontiers of India.
The petitioners case before the assessing authority was that the documents of title to the goods were transferred on high seas i.e., during the movement of goods from the country of export to India. It is for the first time before this Court, in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has this plea, of the sale of goods to M/s. Radha Industries having occasioned the import of goods, been taken placing reliance on certain clauses of the agreements. This Court would not, in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, either re-appreciate the evidence on record or don the robes of the assessing authority to examine disputed questions of fact or interpret the clauses of the agreements. As this contention is not a pure question of law and, at best, is a mixed question of facts and law, this Court would be loathe to undertake such an exercise. Even otherwise, the submission that the sale to Radha Industries occasioned the import of goods is belied by the fact that it is the name of the petitioner which is reflected in the Bill of Entry as the importer of the goods, and not Radha Industries. The submission of Sri S. Ravi, Learned Senior Counsel, that the sale of goods to Radha Industries had occasioned the import necessitates rejection.
V. IS THE PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED FOR DUTY FREE SHOPS APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT CASE?
While placing reliance on the Judgments of the Andhra Pradesh and Madras High Courts in Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation of India Ltd.54 and State Trading Corporation of India Ltd.29, Sri S. Ravi, Learned Senior Counsel would submit that there is a tacit approval, of the principles ennunciated therein, in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hotel Ashoka (Indian Tour. Dev. Cor.Ltd). v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes . On the other hand Sri P. Balaji Varma, Learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes, would submit that the facts pleaded in the instant case do not make out a case for applying the procedure adopted, or the law applicable, to Duty Free Shops; the case of the petitioner is that they had sold the goods even prior to filing of the Bill of Entry; even in the case of Duty Free Shops, the goods stored therat are treated as goods warehoused for a particular period; upon expiry of the time, the unsold goods are required to be taken out for home consumption by filing a Bill of Entry Ex-bond/for home consumption under Section 68 of the Customs Act; in the event of a change in ownership/name of importer, an amended Bill of Entry for warehousing, and a Bill of Entry Ex-bond is filed; and such is not the case on hand.
No tax, on the sale or purchase of goods, can be imposed by any State when the transaction of sale or purchase takes place in the course of import of the goods into the territory of India. If any transaction of sale or purchase takes place when the goods are being imported into India, no State can impose any tax thereon. Under Section 5 of the CST Act, a sale or purchase of goods shall be deemed to take place in the course of import of the goods into the territory of India only if the sale or purchase takes place before the goods have crossed its customs frontiers. In view of Section 2(11) of the Customs Act and Article 286 of the Constitution, it cannot be said that the goods are imported into the territory of India till the goods, or the documents of title to the goods, are brought into India. Where goods have not been brought into the customs frontiers of India, before the transaction of sales had taken place, the transactions must be held to have taken place beyond or outside the custom frontiers of India. The goods are cleared from customs, and are brought into the country after crossing the customs frontiers. Goods lying in bonded warehouses are deemed to have been kept outside the customs frontiers of the country. As duty free shops, situated at International Airports, are beyond the customs frontiers of India, the goods sold thereat must be said to have been sold before the goods have crossed the customs frontiers of India. Transfer of documents of title to the goods is one of the methods whereby delivery of the goods is effected. Delivery may be physical also. Sales effected by physical delivery of the goods, at the duty free shops, are not taxable under the CST Act. (Hotel Ashoka (Indian Tour. Dev. Cor. Ltd).71).
Duty free shops are, in law, taken as being located beyond the customs frontiers and, consequently, the sale of goods at the duty free shops is in the course of import. Reliance placed by the petitioner on Hotel Ashoka (Indian Tour. Dev. Cor. Ltd)71, to contend that the goods sold to Radha Industries is in the course of import, is therefore of no avail.
VI. IS THE PETITIONER ENTITLED TO BE GRANTED TIME TO SUBMIT C FORMS:
Sri S. Ravi, Learned Senior Counsel, would submit that, alternatively and without prejudice, if the subject sales are considered as inter-state sales, the petitioner may then be provided an opportunity to submit C Forms from the buyers within a time frame; and the petitioner had no occasion to produce C Forms as it was claiming exemption all along. Learned Senior Counsel would rely on Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer in this regard. On the other hand Sri P. Balaji Varma, Learned Special Standing Counsel, would submit that the petitioners case has always been that it is a High Sea Sale; they had never pleaded any alternative case either before the authorities or before this Court; there is no pleading or prayer for such a relief; the assessment order was passed in the year 2010, the writ petition was numbered in the year 2013, and interim orders were obtained; now, at the stage of final hearing that too after completion of oral arguments and submission of written arguments by both sides, the petitioner cannot plead an alternative case; the effect of granting such a relief would be (1) a fresh order would have to be passed thereby granting further time to make payment of the determined amount; (2) a fresh order on a new plea, that too at this stage, would save the interest burden on delayed payment on the dealer, and loss of interest to the Revenue; (3) a fresh order, on a new plea at this stage, would amount to granting a benefit to the defaulter at the cost of the Revenue; (4) once the matter is remanded for furnishing C Forms, even if the petitioner fails to produce the C-Forms, he would be saved from payment of interest liability from 2010 (the date of the assessment order), and they would also have the benefit of challenging the orders once again by filing a first appeal, a second appeal and so on.
In Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd.72, the petitioners challenged the findings of the Commercial Tax Officer that the transactions in question constituted inter-State sales. They contended that, when the registered office of the Company at Hyderabad despatched the manufactured goods to its branch office, it was merely a transfer of stock from the registered office to the branch office; thereafter, the movement of the goods started from the branch office to the buyer; the registered office and the branch office were separately registered as dealers under the Sales Tax law; the transactions effected by the branch office should not be identified with the transactions effected by the registered office; and the movement of the goods from Hyderabad to the branch office was only for the purpose of enabling the sale by the branch office and was not in the course of fulfillment of the contract of sale. While expressing their inability to agree, the Supreme Court held:-
.. Even if, as in the present case, the buyer places an order with the branch office and the branch office communicates the terms and specifications of the orders to the registered office and the branch office itself is concerned with the sales despatching, billing and receiving of the sale price, the conclusion must be that the order placed by the buyer is an order placed with the Company, and for the purpose of fulfilling that order the manufactured goods commence their journey from the registered office within the State of Andhra Pradesh to the branch office outside the State for delivery of the goods to the buyer. We must not forget that both the registered office and the branch office are offices of the same Company, and what in effect does take place is that the Company from its registered office in Hyderabad takes the goods to its branch office outside the State and arranges to deliver them to the buyer. The registered office and the branch office do not possess separate juridical personalities. The question really is whether the movement of the goods from the registered office at Hyderabad is occasioned by the order placed by the buyer or is an incident of the contract. If it is so, as it appears no doubt to us, its movement from the very beginning from Hyderabad all the way until delivery is received by the buyer is an inter-State movement..
The manufacture of the goods at the Hyderabad factory and their movement thereafter from Hyderabad to the branch office outside the State was an incident of the contract entered into with the buyer, for it was intended that the same goods should be delivered by the branch office to the buyer. There was no break in the movement of the goods. The branch office merely acted as a conduit through which the goods passed on their way to the buyer. It would have been a different matter if the particular goods had been despatched by the registered office at Hyderabad to the branch office outside the State for sale in the open market and without reference to any order placed by the buyer. In such a case if the goods are purchased from the branch office, it is not a sale under which the goods commenced their movement from Hyderabad. It is a sale where the goods moved merely from the branch office to the buyer. The movement of the goods from the registered office at Hyderabad to the branch office outside the State cannot be regarded as an incident of the sale made to the buyer. (emphasis supplied) Having opined that the disputed transactions were inter- State sales, the Supreme Court held that it was only appropriate that an opportunity should be given to the appellant-company to collect C Forms from the buyers for the purpose of obtaining relief under Section 8(1) read with Section 8(4) of the CST Act, as the question whether the transactions could be described as inter- State sales was in doubt all along, and it was only now that the doubt could be said to have been finally resolved. The Commercial Tax Officer was directed to afford a reasonable opportunity to the appellant-company, to collect C Forms and furnish them, before making an assessment in respect of such transactions. In the present case also the petitioner has, all through, been contending that sale of goods to Radha Industries is a sale in the course of import under Section 5(2) of the CST Act and is, therefore, exempt from tax. The Assessing Authority has held for the first time, by way of impugned assessment orders, that it is an inter-state sale liable to tax under Section 3(a) of the CST Act.
Rule 12(7) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 stipulates that the declaration in Form C shall be furnished to the prescribed authority within three months after the end of the period to which the declaration or the certificate relates. Under the proviso thereto, if the prescribed authority is satisfied that the person concerned was prevented by sufficient cause, from furnishing such declaration or certificate within the aforesaid time, he is empowered to allow such declaration or certificate to be furnished within such prescribed time as he may permit.
In Rajeswari Stone Polishers v. State of Andhra Pradesh a Division Bench of this Court, while interpreting Rule 12(7) of the Central Sales Tax (R&T) Rules, held that the proviso to sub-rule (7) did not prescribe any time within which a dealer was required to file C forms; this meant that, any time after making the assessment, a dealer could file the forms; as long as he was able to satisfy, with regards the sufficient cause contemplated by the proviso, the authority was required to receive those forms; even the appellate authority had the power to receive C forms on proof of sufficient cause, as contemplated by the proviso to Rule 12(7), being shown; if the appellate authority felt that the reasons shown by the appellant was sufficient, as to require no further inquiry, he could himself condone the delay and receive the C forms; but if he thought that the question of sufficient cause called for a further inquiry or investigation into facts, which could not be conveniently done, he could remit the matter to the assessing authority to determine the said issue.
The judgment of the Division Bench in Rajeswari Stone Polishers73 was referred with approval by the Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. M/s.Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Production Limited wherein it was held that the power, under the proviso to Rule 12(7) ,could be exercised only when sufficient cause was shown by the dealer, for not filing them upto the time of assessment, before the first assessing authority; if, in a given case, a dealer had obtained further time from the first assessing authority, and yet failed to produce them before him, the appellate authority should adopt a stiffer standard in judging the sufficient cause shown by the dealer for not producing them earlier; receipt of those forms in appeal cannot be as a matter of course; it should be allowed only where sufficient cause is established by the dealer for not producing them before the first assessing authority as contemplated by Rule 12(7); the requirement of Rule 12(7) cannot be excluded from consideration, by the appellate Court, while judging the sufficiency of the cause shown; and the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, under the Andhra Pradesh Act, was also governed by Regulation 11(1) which was only a reiteration of the very same power.
In Godrej Agrovet Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer, Eluru, West Godavari District a Division Bench of this Court, following its earlier judgment in Rajeswari Stone Polishers73 and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Production74, held that Rule 12(7) conferred power on the assessing authority to receive C forms where sufficient cause was shown by the dealer for not filing them upto the time of assessment; there is no limitation, as such, provided for receiving the C forms; they can be received at any time, after the order of assessment, provided sufficient cause is shown; the making of assessment itself cannot be postponed at the instance of a dealer, in order to enable the dealer to produce such C forms, if such postponement results in the bar of limitation in making the assessment; if an assessment can be postponed, and such postponement is not hit by limitation, time can always be extended by the assessing authority to enable the dealer to produce the C forms; and, in case such C forms are not produced, it does not take away the right of the dealer to produce them even after making of the assessment order, provided sufficient cause is shown.
As noted hereinabove Rule 12(7) enables the assessing authority, on sufficient cause being shown, to grant further time for production of C forms. Such an opportunity can be granted even after an assessment order is passed, provided sufficient cause is shown. On production of the prescribed C-Forms, the petitioner would be entitled to pay concessional rate of tax. As the petitioner can furnish C-Forms, in terms of the proviso to Rule 12(7) of the CST (R&T) Rules, even after the assessment order is passed, we see no reason to deny them an opportunity to produce the C-Forms, and avail the benefit of concessional rate of tax.
CONCLUSION:
For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned assessment orders do not necessitate interference, and the challenge thereto by the petitioner is rejected. The petitioner is, however, granted three months time from today to produce the prescribed C- Forms. While the assessing authority has expressed his doubts regarding the very existence of some of the dealers outside the State, it is not necessary for us to delve on this aspect any further, as it is only if such dealers are in existence would the petitioner be able to procure C-Forms from them, and furnish it to the assessing authority. While the prescribed concessional rate of tax, payable by the petitioner on the inter-state sale of goods, shall be paid by them forthwith, the respondents shall not take coercive steps for recovery of the balance tax for a period of three months from today. In case the petitioner produces C-Forms within the aforesaid three month period, they shall be extended the benefit of concessional rate of tax to the extent for which C-Forms are produced. It is made clear that, in case the petitioner fails to submit the C-Forms within three months from today, it is open to the respondents thereafter to proceed and recover the balance tax due from them in accordance with law.
Subject to the above observations, both the Writ Petitions fail and are, accordingly, dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand automatically dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs.
_______________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) ____________________________________ (M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J) Date: 18.12.2014.