Allahabad High Court
Commissioner, Sales Tax vs Girdhari Lal Football Maker on 21 October, 1986
Equivalent citations: [1987]65STC287(ALL)
JUDGMENT R.R. Misra, J.
1. This revision is directed against the order dated 24th September, 1985, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Meerut Bench, Meerut. The short question that arises in the present case is as to whether the opposite party dealer is entitled to the exemption under Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. Admittedly, the opposite party manufactures only football and volleyball covers. It did not manufacture bladders used in football and volleyball.
2. The contention raised by the learned standing counsel is that for the purpose of being entitled to the exemption under Section 5(3) of the Act the dealer must manufacture football or volleyball bladders as well as covers. If he does not do so, he is not entitled to the exemption claimed by him. Shri Bharatji Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the dealer, however, states that the distinction sought to be drawn by the learned standing counsel is not warranted by law in view of the provisions mentioned in Section 5(3) of the Act. His contention, therefore, is that the assessee is entitled to the exemption under the aforesaid provision.
3. The Sales Tax Tribunal has in the impugned order stated that the dealer received orders from three modes : (1) when the exporters tour foreign countries they received orders personally. In such pro forma invoices full details of the orders are specifically mentioned and it is mentioned in these orders that orders were placed for football and volleyball with bladders ; (2) orders received from foreign countries in writing. In these orders football and volleyball alone was mentioned and no mention about bladder is contained in these orders and (3) orders for the supply of football and volleyball with bladder was specifically mentioned while in others trade mark of the bladder was also mentioned.
4. The view taken by the Tribunal was that before the orders had been placed to the assessee the exporters had the orders for export with them for football and volleyballs including bladders and that these orders placed by the exporters to the assessee were in pursuance of the aforesaid agreement or orders. The further finding recorded by the Tribunal is that the sale occasioned the export of those goods in the same condition in which they were received by the exporters and hence there was full compliance of Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act as the sale was in the course of such export for the purpose of complying with the agreement or orders. In this view of the matter the Sales Tax Tribunal held that the dealer was entitled to the exemption claimed by it.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The relevant portion of . Section 5(3) of the Act reads as under :
Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1), the last sale or purchase of any goods preceding the sale or purchase occasioning the export of those goods out of the territory of India shall also be deemed to be in the course of such export, if such last sale or purchase took place after and was for the purpose of complying with the agreement or order for or in relation to such export.
6. A reading of the above section however shows that the words used under the aforesaid provision do not make any distinction in the goods itself as has been sought to be drawn by the learned standing counsel in his argument above. The view taken by the Tribunal is, in my opinion, correct in law. I find no infirmity in the order of the Sales Tax Tribunal.
7. In the result, the revision fails and is dismissed with costs.