State Taxation Tribunal - West Bengal
Calcutta Label Works And Anr. vs Commercial Tax Officer, Monohar Katra ... on 30 March, 1994
Equivalent citations: [1994]95STC122(TRIBUNAL)
JUDGMENT
L.N. Ray, Judicial Member
1. This is an application under Section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987, directed against order dated December 4, 1992, passed by respondent No. 1, revisional order dated January 22, 1993, passed by respondent No, 5, Assistant Commissioner and the second revisional order dated March 30, 1993, passed by respondent No. 6, Additional Commissioner. The application is in all respects one under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the jurisdiction over the subject-matter having stood transferred to this Tribunal to the exclusion of the High Court.
2. The question for decision is whether aluminium foil purchased by applicant No. 1 and the goods sold by him by way of export as printed aluminium foil or pharmaceutical packing materials are the identical goods for the purpose of Section 5(2)(a)(v) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 (in short, "the 1941 Act"), Rule 27C(2) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941 (in short, "the 1941 Rules") and Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (in short, "the 1956 Act").
3. The case of the applicants is that applicant No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as "the applicant") is a proprietorship business, registered as a dealer under the 1941 Act, which carries on business "of manufacturing 'aluminium foil' also known as 'pharmaceutical packing materials' in the shape of labels for sale in West Bengal and also exporting same to places outside India, i.e., Bangladesh, and Singapore after making purchase thereof mainly from Bharat Aluminium Company Limited......", also known as BALCO. For the said purpose, the applicant requires declaration forms XXIV-A and XXXIII under Rules 27A(1b) and 27C(2) of the 1941 Rules from respondent No. 1. In the middle of the year 1988, the applicant took up export business, for which declarations in form XXXIII became necessary. Declarations in those two forms had been issued to the applicant, as required, without any problem. Forms XXIV-A were last issued on August 27, 1991 and forms XXXIII were last issued on October 10, 1991. Application was made on January 27, 1992, for issuance of those two types of declaration forms, but nothing was issued. At the time of the present application, the applicant required 26 declarations in form XXXIII and 125 in form XXIV-A so that those could be furnished to suppliers of goods in order to avoid additional liability of tax. The assessing officer stopped issuing the forms allegedly with the motive of doing mischief and assigning no reason, and issued a notice dated February 21, 1992, received on February 24, 1992 under Section 14(1) of the 1941 Act, directing the applicant to produce books of account for the period from April 1, 1990 to December 31, 1992. Upon a written representation dated February 26, 1992 against that notice as to how books up to December 31, 1992 could be produced on February 28, 1992, it was taken back. Then the applicant received another notice dated March 6, 1992, calling upon production of books of account, etc., for the period from April 1, 1990 till date, for examination in connection with issuance of declaration forms XXXIII. This notice was duly complied with. But on April 13, 1992, respondent No. 1 and a team of officers paid a surprise visit to the applicant's place of business and conducted a "random search". On April 15, 1992, the applicant made a written representation, and as directed, produced all "evidence". Respondent No. 1 assured issuance of declaration forms, but in spite of another representation dated April 29, 1992, the forms were not issued. Moreover, respondent No. 3, Commercial Tax Officer, Assessment Wing, informed BALCO, the applicant's main supplier, that sales to the applicant could not be covered by forms XXXIII, and asked them to deposit the necessary tax. Thereafter, the applicant convinced BALCO that although the purchased goods had been subjected to processing before exportation, there was no change in the character and identity thereof, and that acceptance of declarations in form XXXIII was quite in order. But respondent No. 2, Commercial Tax Officer, Central Section, seized several books of account and documents on June 24, 1992 from the applicant's place of business and the applicant was asked to attend respondent No. 2's office with other books of account for meeting their queries. The direction was duly complied with. In spite of approaching respondents 1, 2 and 3 and also the concerned Assistant and Additional Commissioners, declarations in forms XXXIII and XXIV-A continued to be withheld with the result that supplying dealers demanded payment of further tax. So, the applicant filed an application in this Tribunal, numbered as RN-498 of 1992. During its hearing, respondents submitted that no application for declarations was received by them. So, this Tribunal had permitted the applicant to file an application for declarations with a direction that, if filed, such application should be disposed of within 3 days. Then an application for declarations was filed and it was rejected by the Commercial Tax Officer on December 4, 1992. RN-498 of 1992 was finally disposed of by giving liberty to the applicant to prefer revision from the said order with a direction that, if filed, such revisional application should be disposed of within 4 weeks. But, respondent No. 4, the Assistant Commissioner rejected the revision by his order dated January 22, 1993. A second revision filed before respondent No. 6, the Additional Commissioner, also was in vain in respect of declarations in form XXXIII, although he gave certain favourable directions for issuance of declarations in form XXIV-A in course of his revisional order dated March 30, 1993. Thereafter, the applicant filed application for form XXIV-A before respondent No.1, who did not issue any such form till the date of the instant application, even though a query of respondent No. 1 was duly explained by saying that form XXIV-A was required for purchases of goods for manufacture for local sale (not for export). Allegedly, the Additional Commissioner had failed to appreciate the correct position regarding exportation of goods after some processing. Non-issuance of declaration forms means virtual closure of the applicant's business which involves continuous purchases of "aluminium foil" as raw materials for "manufacturing the finished product as also exporting 'aluminium foils' to Bangladesh and Singapore" (see paragraph 29 of the application).
4. According to the applicant, though aluminium foil is processed and printed after purchase, according to the requirements of foreign parties, there was no change in the character and identity of the goods purchased ; and the processing did not disqualify the export sales from claiming exemption from payment of tax. It is claimed that aluminium foil purchased remained aluminium foil when exported. So, refusal to issue declaration forms is challenged as arbitrary and unreasonable. The applicant has prayed for commanding respondents not to refuse to issue forms XXXIII and XXIV-A.
5. Respondents' case in their affidavit-in-opposition is that the registration certificate of the applicant under the 1941 Act does not mention "aluminium pharmaceutical packing material", but it mentions that the applicant manufactures "golden label", "paper label" and "tea sample packet". In paragraph 2 of the application he has admitted that he manufactures pharmaceutical packing material. It is stated that form XXIV-A is required by a manufacturer for purchase of raw materials, etc., for use in manufacture of finished goods for sale in West Bengal and form XXXIII is required by an exporter of goods which are exported outside India in the same condition in which those were purchased from the local market. If any form was earlier issued, respondent No. 1 is not bound by such action of his predecessor-in-office. The exemption under Section 5(3) of the 1956 Act is not available to the applicant who converts the goods purchased into a new commercial commodity before exportation. So, the applicant is not entitled to receive form XXXIII. The applicant was asked to appear and explain on the point whether forms XXXIII earlier issued had been properly used. While denying all material allegations of the applicant, it has been also stated that no letter had been sent to BALCO by Commercial Tax Officer, Assessment Wing, as alleged. According to respondents, after purchase of aluminium foil from BALCO and before exportation, applicant laminates the foils and then prints and sizes the same and manufactures aluminium pharmaceutical packing materials (vide paragraph 17 of the opposition). Seizure of books of account and documents has been said to be justified. It was found out that the applicant did not export aluminium foil, but he exported pharmaceutical packing materials as per designs and specifications of foreign buyers. Some instances of evasion of tax by sales to dealers within India have been cited. Respondent No. 1 has denied that he ever said that declarations had been withheld on instruction from respondents 2 and 3 and that respondent No; 3 ever told the applicant that he had issued no such instruction. It is stated that the applicant was asked to file revised returns and annexure "P" to the returns, as he had filed incomplete returns without annexure "P". For that reason also, declarations could not be issued. Respondent No. 1 claims that he has carried out the order of respondent No. 6. In his letter dated April 19, 1993 (annexure "A" to the opposition) the applicant admitted that he had exported pharmaceutical packing materials (not aluminium foil) and according to respondents, that is the correct position. Since the activities of the applicant are said to be amounting to manufacture of a different commercial commodity, he is allegedly not entitled to the benefit of Section 5(3) of the 1956 Act.
6. The Applicant has used an affidavit-in-reply. According to him, aluminium foil as purchased falls within entry 76.07 of the Central Excise Tariff of 1993-94 and as exported it is also categorised under the same entry. No excise duty is paid on the exported goods. So, there was no manufacture. Entire quantities purchased are claimed to have been exported. In 1981, the applicant prayed for amendment of the registration certificate, but no action has yet been taken by respondents in that regard. It is said that what is exported is really "printed aluminium foil", though Bangladesh Government identifies it as "pharmaceutical packing material". Annexure "P" to the applicant's returns has since been filed. Under the existing law, assessments of all returns up to December, 1992, should be deemed to be completed. It is said that although aluminium foil is printed after purchase and before exportation, there is no manufacture of any. new goods, the goods remaining the same.
7. The business activities of the applicant are, therefore, of two types. In the first category falls his activities of purchasing aluminium foil in West Bengal, manufacturing laminated, printed and sized pharmaceutical packing materials and selling the finished product in West Bengal. As far as this type of business is concerned, there is no dispute that sales in West Bengal by the applicant are exigible to tax under the 1941 Act which is a multi-point taxing statute. In fact, the applicant is registered as a dealer under the 1941 Act mainly as a manufacturer of golden labels, paper labels and tea sample packets and partly as a re-seller of golden labels and paper labels with the provision for purchase of raw materials, etc., with tax concession for the purpose of manufacturing the said products. We see from annexure page 19 of the affidavit-in-opposition being a representation dated April 19, 1993, submitted to the Commercial Tax Officer, Manoharkatra Charge, that the applicant had clearly admitted that he was manufacturing finished goods and selling the same in West Bengal and returns were filed accordingly. The second type of business is purchase of aluminium foil in West Bengal, conversion of the same into laminated, printed and sized pharmaceutical packing materials and then exportation of such materials to Bangladesh and Singapore. The dispute relates to these exports. The applicant contends that he is entitled to exemption from tax for purchase of aluminium foil, because he claims that he is exporting the same goods, namely, aluminium foil, in spite of laminating, printing and cutting into size.
8. If any goods is governed by the 1941 Act, the exports would attract Section 5(2)(a)(v) which is extracted below :
"5(2). In this Act the expression 'taxable turnover' means, in the case of a dealer who is liable to pay tax under Section 4 or under Sub-section (3) of Section 8, that part of his gross turnover during any period which remains after deducting therefrom--
(a) his turnover during that period on--
(v) sales of goods which are shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioner not to have taken place in West Bengal, or to have taken place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, within the meaning of Section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (74 of 1956), or in the course of import of the goods into, or export of the goods out of, the territory of India, within the meaning of Section 5 of that Act."
The procedure of claiming deduction under Section 5(2)(a)(v) of the 1941 Act read with Section 5(3) of the 1956 Act, is laid down in Rule 27C(2) of the 1941 Rules, requiring production of declaration in form XXXIII obtained by the purchasing dealer.
9. If, however, the commodity in question is governed by the 1954 Act, which is a single point taxing law, the exports would attract Rule 27(2) of the 1954 Rules which is extracted below :
"27(2). A dealer who wishes to deduct from his gross turnover any amount on account of a sale of notified commodity in West Bengal preceding the sale occasioning export out of the territory of India within the meaning of Sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (74 of 1956), other than that referred to in Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27, shall, on demand, furnish a certificate in form XII duly filled in and signed by the buyer exporting such notified commodity, stating, inter alia, that the notified commodity purchased in West Bengal has been exported out of the territory of India from a place in West Bengal along with such other evidences as may be specified in the certificate in form XII."
10. Mr. T.N. De, State Representative, submitted that (i) what was exported by the applicant was a new commercial commodity, different from aluminium foil which was purchased and then subjected to several processes amounting to manufacture, and (ii) applicant's case supports the contention of respondents and suffers from contradiction inasmuch as (a) the fact of manufacturing pharmaceutical packing material is admitted, (b) registration was taken as a dealer under the 1941 Act for the purpose of manufacture of labels and packets, and (c) what the applicant wants is declarations in forms XXIV-A and XXXIII, both under the 1941 Act. Aluminium foil purchased by the applicant is a notified commodity governed by the 1954 Act, and had the same commodity, namely, aluminium foil, been exported, the applicant would have to furnish form XII under Rule 27(2) of the 1954 Rules and in that case, he would not pray for issuance of declarations in form XXXIII under Rule 27C(2) of the 1941 Rules.
11. There was no controversy, nor could there be any, that plain aluminium foil is a notified commodity under Section 25 of the 1954 Act. By Notification No. 4584-F.T. dated September 9, 1980, issued under Section 25 (ibid), the following commodity was taken out of the 1941 Act and brought within the purview of the 1954 Act :
"Aluminium foils including aluminium foils backed or interleaved with any substance, other than paper."
In the instant case, it is common ground that what the applicant purchases, even for export, is plain aluminium foil, neither backed nor interleaved. There is, however, a controversy as to whether what is exported is the same commodity which was purchased.
12. Mr. Pradip Ghosh, learned counsel for the applicants, argued that having regard to the object and intention of Article 286 and Section 5(3) of the 1956 Act, to the effect that exports should be encouraged and should not be burdened with sales tax, the processes of lamination, printing and sizing cannot be treated as manufacture for the purpose of export (though it might be so, where the 1956 Act would not be attracted) and hence, according to him, the commodity exported cannot be held to be a different one. Mr. T.N. De contended on behalf of respondents that irrespective of the object and intention of the aforesaid provisions, the processes through which plain aluminium foil passes before exportation, amount to manufacture, thereby bringing out a distinct commercial commodity which does not enjoy the exemption from sales tax. He also argued that the commodity purchased and the goods ultimately exported are not the same article within the meaning of Notification No. 4584-F.T. dated September 9, 1980.
13. Article 286(1)(b) of the Constitution of India does not allow a State to impose tax on sale or purchase of goods where such sale or purchase takes place in the course of import of the goods into, or export of the goods out of, the territory of India. This provision is intended to ensure that sales tax leviable by a State does not interfere with the exclusive legislative and taxing powers of the Union in regard to imports and exports vide entries 41 and 83 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. The Central Government is intended to be made the sole authority to take appropriate measures regarding imports and exports, which are matters of national concern, without the burden of sales tax or purchase tax leviable by a State. (Mr. Pradip Ghosh relied on page 22 of Volume L of D. Basu's Commentary on Constitution, 6th Edition). Another object is to avoid double taxation (one by the Union and another by a State) on foreign trade which is of vital importance to the country's economy. Article 286(2) authorises the Parliament to formulate principles for determining when a sale or purchase takes place in the course of import or export, by enacting law to that effect. Accordingly, Parliament enacted Section 5 of the 1956 Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 5 deals with export. Section 5(3) extends this exemption from sales/ purchase tax to the last purchase of goods preceding export in the following language :
"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."
Mr. Pradip Ghosh contended that the intention of Section 5(3) above is to treat the last purchase of goods for export in the same manner as the export itself for the purpose of exemption from sales tax. Be that as it may, two conditions are to be fulfilled in order to be eligible to reap the benefit of the exemption. There must be an export out of the territory of India and "those goods" which were purchased last must have been so exported. Mr. Ghosh argued that if the purchased goods are subjected to certain processes for complying with the requirements of the foreign buyer, the goods will remain the same goods, no matter whether under the State enactments the purchased goods is taxable under the 1954 Act and the exported goods is taxable under the 1941 Act. He submitted that Section 5(3) of the 1956 Act should not be given a literal interpretation. Mr. Ghosh further contended that lamination is a prerequisite for printing ; and printing is done only on one side of the foil, leaving the other side as plain as at the time of purchase. According to him, like laminating and printing, cutting to size does not make any difference. Mr. Ghosh argued that though each processing brings about a change, until there is a qualitative change, the goods cannot be said to have become a different taxable commodity in this context. He said, the question is : Is the exported product distinct from aluminium foil ? His answer was in the negative.
14. Mr. Ghosh relied on the case of Sterling Foods [1986] 63 STC 239 (SC), where a similar question was answered in favour of the assessee regarding last sale or purchase of shrimps, prawns and lobsters which were exported after those were processed by cutting heads and tails and by doing certain other things. He also placed reliance on the case of Mahi Traders [1989] 73 STC 228 (SC), where having regard to Section 14(iii) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, it was held that split and coloured leathers are entitled to the special treatment under Section 15(a) of the Central Act of 1956 as hides and skins. In the case of Chowgule & Co. [1981] 47 STC 124 (SC), it was held that processing by blending of different qualities of ore for the purpose of complying with export specifications did not produce a commercially different article, and the product remained the same article--"ore". Mr. Ghosh naturally drew support from this decision. On behalf of the applicant reliance was placed also on the case of Shiphy International [1988] 69 STC 325 (SC). In that case, the benefit of Section 5(3) of the 1956 Act was allowed, where fresh frog legs were purchased and, after removing the skin, washing and cleansing, etc., and also after freezing to avoid decomposition, the export was made. Mr. T.N. De, learned State Representative, relied on the case of Dinod Cashew Corporation [1986] 61 STC 1 (Mad.) where in the context of Section 5(3) of the 1956 Act it was held that the assessee was not entitled to exemption, because cashew kernel exported by the firm was a commodity different from raw cashewnut purchased by it. Mr. Pradip Ghosh submitted that the decision in [1986] 63 STC 239 (SC) (Sterling Foods v. State of Karnataka) holds the field and he pointed out that in the case of Malabar Cashew Nuts [1988] 68 STC 269 (AP) the decision in [1986] 61 STC 1 (Mad.) (Dinod Cashew Corporation v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer) was considered but not followed. Mr. De also referred to the case of Edible Products [1991] 83 STC 317 in which this Tribunal held that refined cocoanut oil produced after processing cocoanut oil (as purchased) by neutralisation, decolouring and deodorisation is a different commercial commodity from the original one. He also referred to the case of Presidency Kid Leather [1991] 80 STC 338, in which this Tribunal held that raw goat skin and processed semi-finished product therefrom were different commercial commodities. That was of course not a case in the context of. Section 5(3) of the 1956 Act. Mr. De also relied on the case of Bengal Iron Corporation [1993] 90 STC 47 (SC), where it was held that cast iron as "declared goods" within the meaning of Section 14(iv)(i) of the 1956 Act does not include cast iron castings. It was also not a case under Section 5(3) of the 1956 Act. Learned State Representative placed reliance on the case of Consolidated Coffee Ltd. [1980] 46 STC 164 (SC). He contended that in the instant case there was a long time-gap between purchase of aluminium foil and export thereof and therefore, benefit under Section 5(3) of the 1956 Act, ought not to be extended. Mr. Pradip Ghosh took serious objection to the point taken by the Revenue at the late stage. Referring to the case of Mohinder Singh Gill AIR 1978 SC 851, he contended that when this ground of long time-gap was not taken in the orders of the authorities below, the respondents could not take this plea for the first time. In AIR 1978 SC 851 (Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner) it was held that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. We had upheld the contention of Mr. Ghosh. Learned State Representative was not allowed to argue the point of time-gap for the first time before us. However, in [1980] 46 STC 164 (Consolidated Coffee Ltd. v. Coffee Board) the Supreme Court held that Section 5(3) of the 1956 Act was enacted to extend the exemption from tax liability only to such penultimate sale as satisfies the two conditions specified therein, namely, (a) that such penultimate sale must take place (become complete) subsequent to the export agreement or export order, and (b) it must be for the purpose of complying with such agreement or order. Mr. Ghosh, appearing for the applicant, also referred to the case of Pio Food Packers [1980] 46 STC 63 (SC) where it was held that when pineapple fruit is processed into pineapple slices for the purpose of being sold in sealed cans, there is no consumption of the original pineapple fruit for the purpose of manufacture.
15. In the present case, it is common ground that plain aluminium foil was purchased and it was subjected to several processing like laminating, printing and cutting to size for complying with the export order of foreign buyers. In fact, samples of plain foil and foil as exported have been shown. The printing was done as desired by and in the name of the foreign buyer. Accordingly, the conditions stipulated in Section 5(3) vide [1980] 46 STC 164 (SC) (Consolidated Coffee Ltd. v. Coffee Board) are satisfied. We are impressed by the argument of Mr. Pradip Ghosh. According to us, for the purpose of Section 5(3) of the 1956 Act and for the consequential purpose of enjoying exemption from sales tax either under the 1941 Act or under the 1954 Act, the processing done to plain aluminium foil before exportation, does not alter the plain foil, as purchased, to a different and new commercial commodity in the form of printed aluminium foil. Mr. Ghosh has drawn our attention to the fact that although in the application and elsewhere the commodity exported is described as pharmaceutical packing material and although the party describes the same as such, it was described by the applicant in the relevant documents as printed aluminium foil. Moreover, Mr. Ghosh pointed out that the plain aluminium foil was purchased for export for use as pharmaceutical packing material and after the printing and cutting were made, the foil was exported for the same purpose. So, functionally the foil exported was no different from the foil purchased.
16. Mr. Pradip Ghosh drew our attention to item 76.07 of the Central Excise Tariff of 1993-94 and showed that aluminium foil whether or not printed came under the main heading of the item. Mr. T.N. De, State Representative, however, pointed out that the sub-item 76.07.10 related to plain aluminium foil, whereas 76.07.50 related to printed aluminium foil. He, therefore, argued that, though under the same broad heading, plain and printed foils were treated for the purpose of excise duty as different commodities. Mr. Ghosh, for the applicant, contended that mere printing did not alter the commodity and he drew our attention to Memo No. 23112-C.T. dated October 30, 1987, issued on behalf of Commissioner of Commercial Taxes informing Modern Food Industries (India) Ltd., Calcutta, that printed wrapping paper was a variety of paper and should not be treated as printed material. As far as this memo dated October 30, 1987 is concerned, no reliance can be placed thereon, because, after all, it is an administrative instruction, having no legal support and, therefore, it does not bind the quasi-judicial authorities. Mr. Ghosh also referred to a decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of Dipak Lalbhai & Co. [1994] 92 STC 78, in which it was held in the context of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, that white printed wrappers fell under paper and printing of paper did not involve manufacture or bring into existence a different taxable commodity.
17. Having considered the rival contentions of the parties and the decisions and materials relied on by them, we are of the opinion that laminating, printing and sizing of aluminium foil for the purpose of complying with export orders do not amount to manufacture and do not produce a different taxable commercial commodity in the context of Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, irrespective of the question whether the exported commodity is governed, for the purpose of State sales tax, by the 1941 Act or by the 1954 Act. We are of the further opinion that, in the context of Section 5(3) of the 1956 Act, printed aluminium foil of specific sizes, as exported by the applicant, cannot be considered as different taxable commercial commodities and should be treated as the same commodity as plain aluminium foil. Therefore, in the facts of the case, the applicant is entitled to the benefit of exemption under Section 5(3) of the 1956 Act. That being the position, respondents should issue appropriate declaration forms according to law to the applicant for its export turnover. As regards declarations required for sales within West Bengal, since printed aluminium foil is not comprehended within Notification No. 4584-F.T. dated September 9, 1980, issued under Section 25 of the 1954 Act, since the applicant has not challenged the position that printed aluminium foils are governed by the 1941 Act, and since the applicant has prayed for issuance of form XXIV-A, respondents should issue declarations in form XXIV-A to the applicant according to law. We like to make it clear that the position with regard to declarations in respect of export turnover is different from that of sales turnover within West Bengal, in view of the restrictions and conditions imposed by Section 5(3) of the 1956 Act in terms of Article 286 of the Constitution. Therefore, although the applicant had wanted that form XXXIII should be issued for export turnover and although that form, like form XXIV-A, was also under the 1941 Act, we are directing that regarding export turnover, the appropriate certificate or declaration forms should be furnished or issued according to law, as the case may be.
18. In the result, the application is allowed. The applicant is entitled to the benefit of Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, for the last sale or purchase of aluminium foil for complying with export sales, though instead of plain aluminium foil, printed and sized aluminium foil was exported. If the applicant files fresh applications for issuance of declarations for the purpose of availing of the benefit under Section 5(3) of the 1956 Act, respondents are directed to issue declarations in appropriate form according to law, unless it is decided that certificate in form XII will serve the purpose. Respondents are further directed to issue declarations in form XXIV-A according to law to the applicants for sales of printed aluminium foil of any size within West Bengal, if the applicant files fresh application for declarations. Order dated December 4, 1992, passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Monoharkatra Charge and the order dated January 22, 1993, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in revision from the said order are set aside. The order dated March 30, 1993, passed by respondent No. 6 in the second revision is set aside to the extent it relates to declaration forms for the export sales. The pending applications for declarations shall be disposed of afresh by the respondents according to law and in the manner indicated above. There will be no order for costs. On the oral prayer of the State Representative, operation of the judgment and order be stayed for 8 weeks hence for moving the Supreme Court of India.
P.R. Balasubramanian, Technical Member.
19. I agree.