Smt.Lalitha Muraleedharan vs The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes on 3 November, 2015

[Cites 26, Cited by 2]

Kerala High Court

Smt.Lalitha Muraleedharan vs The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes on 3 November, 2015

Does the movement of goods/sandalwoods sold by the respondent/Forest Department in a public auction from Kerala to the appellant, who took it to the unit situated in a Special Economic Zone in Tamil Nadu, on satisfaction of the due amount and taking delivery in Kerala, constitute a transaction "in the course of export of the goods outside the territory of India" to sustain the plea of the assesee that it is not taxable by the State ?. Whether it will come within the purview of Section 5 (3) of the Central Sales Tax Act [the 'CST Act' in short] to get exemption from payment of tax ? Could it be regarded as an 'interstate sale' and if exemption sought for could be given in terms of Section 8 (6) of the CST Act or whether it is a 'local sale' as contended by the Department ? Can the appellant, who participated in the bid without demur as to the tender conditions, seek for any relief to get absolved from the tax liability under the Kerala Value W. A. No. 2665 of 2015 : 2 : Added Tax Act [the 'KVAT Act' in short] without challenging the provisions contained in the Tender at appropriate time or even later ? Will the 'Same Goods Theory' as explained by the Apex Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Azad Coach Builders Private Limited and another [(2010) 9 SCC 524] will help the appellant in any manner to cross the hurdle ?. These are the main points to be considered in this appeal preferred by the appellant/assessee.

2. The appellant is the proprietrix of an establishment run in the Madras Export Processing Zone, Thambaram, Chennai; engaged in the manufacture of essential oils, natural extracts and products of sandal wood, who is also stated as an 'exporter of sandalwood products'. So as to cater to the requirement of the appellant, she used to participate in the 'e-auctions' conducted by the Forest Department in Kerala, Marayoor, through the 3rd respondent who is a Government of India enterprise - acting as an agent of the Forest Department of the State. The appellant, admittedly, is not a registered dealer in Kerala, but is registered on the rolls of the authorities in Tamil Nadu, under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act and CST Act.

3. The Forest Department issued Ext. P5 notification dated W. A. No. 2665 of 2015 : 3 : 27.12.2014 for sale of 'cleaned sandalwood' stocked and stored at the Government Sandalwood Depot/godown in Marayoor range, by 'e-auction' scheduled on 5th and 6th of February 2015, at the Government Sandalwood Depot, Marayoor. Apart from the terms of Tender notified, it was also subject to 'General conditions' published in the Kerala State Gazette dated 04.11.2014 and Ext. P6 Special terms and conditions dated 23.12.2014.

4. Pursuant to the above Tender notification, the appellant satisfied the EMD and participated in the Tender; who came out successful in respect of 'three different lots'; based on which Exts.P7, P8 and P9 confirmation letters were issued, accepting the bid submitted by the appellant. Accordingly, the appellant was required to satisfy the due amount and also the tax under the KVAT Act. The due amount was satisfied and the entire tax liability was cleared as borne by Exts. P11 and P12 certificates issued by the authorities concerned. Eventhough the appellant had sought to spare her from the tax liability stating that her establishment was situated in a Special Economic Zone and not taxable, the request was turned down by the first respondent as per Ext. P14, pointing out that it was a 'local sale' and that the unit was situated outside W. A. No. 2665 of 2015 : 4 : the State.

5. After satisfying the tax as above, the appellant approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 9096 of 2015 for getting her grievance redressed; wherein Ext.P17 interim order was passed on 30.03.2015 granting liberty to approach the Divisional Forest Officer, Marayoor, Idukki district by filing Form I under the CST Act, seeking exemption on the ground that the goods were purchased for export and the said respondent was directed to have it considered on merits, after hearing the bidder. It was accordingly that Ext. P18 representation was filed, which was considered and rejected by the competent authority as per Ext.P19, holding that the bidder was not eligible for tax exemption in terms of Section 6 (7) (b) of the KVAT Act, it being a 'local sale'. In view of the turn of events, W.P.(C) No. 9096 of 2015 was sought to be withdrawn, without prejudice to the right to challenge the relevant proceedings including Ext. P19. The Writ Petition was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn, vide Ext. P20 judgment dated 27.05.2015.

6. The appellant approached this Court again by filing W.P. (C) No. 21530 of 2015 with the following prayers :

" (i) a declaration that sale effected to a unit in Special Economic Zone established under the Special W. A. No. 2665 of 2015 : 5 : Economic Zone Act, 2005 by any dealer in the domestic tariff area is an export sale and no Value Added Tax can be levied or collected by the respondents in respect of such sale.

(ii) a writ of Certiorari or any other writ, order or direction, quashing Exhibits P9, P10, P14, P16 and P19 in so far as it demand sale tax on the sale of sandalwood to the petitioner treating the transaction between the petitioner and respondents 2 to 4 as a local sale taxable under Section 6 (1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, as the demand and collection of sale tax being illegal, unjust and violative of Article 286 of the Constitution of India and provisions of the Special Economic Zone Act, 2005, Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003.

(iii) a writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to reimburse the amount paid by the petitioner to satisfy the illegal demand of the sale tax by the respondents and evidence by Exhibits P11 and P12 value added tax clearance certificate issued by the Forest Range Officer, Marayoor with interest at bank lending rate.

(iv) A writ of prohibition or any other writ, direction or order restraining the respondents from demanding or collecting value added tax on any sale W. A. No. 2665 of 2015 : 6 : made by them to the petitioner, being a unit in Special Economic Zone.

(v) to issue such other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

7. A statement was filed from the part of the first respondent reiterating the stand of the Department and asserting that it was only a 'local sale' and not an interstate sale or sale in the course of export. After hearing both the sides, a learned single Judge of this Court made a threadbare analysis of the facts, figures and relevant provisions of law, after which interference was declined and the writ petition was dismissed. This forms the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.

8. Heard Mr. Raju Joseph, the learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. C.K. Govindan, the learned Special Government Pleader [Taxes] at length.

9. The sum and substance of the case projected by the appellant is that by virtue of the enactment of The Special Economic Zones Act, 2005, a unit in Special Economic Zone engaged in authorised operations is deemed to be a foreign territory for the purpose of trade and tariff and as such purchase of W. A. No. 2665 of 2015 : 7 : sandalwood by the appellant from the Forest Department in Kerala is an export purchase/export sale coming within the ambit of Section 5(1) of the CST Act, and hence not taxable. It is also contended that no sale in the course of such transit can be taxed by the State by virtue of the embargo created under Article 286 of the Constitution of India. Specific provision, is incorporated in the KVAT Act as well, by way of Section 13 (1) stipulating that every sale in the course of export shall be a 'zero rate sale'. It is pointed out that the appellant has no business place in the State of Kerala and that 'sandalwood' was purchased only to meet the export obligation under Exts. P2, P3 and P4 purchase orders issued prior to the date of sale. There is a further contention, as averred in paragraph 6 of the Writ Appeal, that the respondents were specifically informed before and after the 'e-auction' that the goods purchased were intended to be taken to a Special Economic Zone [though no material has been produced before this Court to substantiate the same]. By virtue of Section 6 (7) (b) of the KVAT Act, it is contended that a sale to Special Economic Zone is exempted from tax liability.

10. According to the learned Special Government Pleader, W. A. No. 2665 of 2015 : 8 : there is absolutely no merit of bonafides in the contention now put forth before this Court and that the issue is squarely covered against the appellant as per the ruling rendered by another Division Bench of this Court under similar circumstances involving sale of sandalwood in the auction conducted by the Forest Department in Kerala, Marayoor to the dealers outside the State. The plea taken was that it was an 'interstate sale', not exigible to tax under the Local enactment; which was repelled as per the decision reported in 2005 [141] STC 333 [Ashish Kapur Vs. Forest Officer, Marayur and others] categorically answering that it was only a 'local sale' exigible to tax. Specific clauses in the Tender notification/General conditions/Special conditions were adverted to; besides citing several judicial precedents as to the commencement and conclusion of the sale in relation to the exigency to tax. It is pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that the transaction is neither an import or export, nor an interstate sale and if at all any concession is to be given, it could only be by way of exemption if any notification is issued either under Section 7 or Section 50 of the Special Economic Zones Act. Since no such notification has been issued, the appellant is not entitled to get any relief, submits W. A. No. 2665 of 2015 : 9 : the learned Special Government Pleader.

11. By virtue of Article 286 of the Constitution of India, no State can impose tax on the sale or purchase of goods if it takes place (a) outside the State or (b) in the course of import of the goods into, or export of the goods out of the territory of India. By virtue of Clause 2 of Article 286, the Parliament may, by law, formulate principles for determining when a sale or purchase of goods takes place in any of the ways mentioned in Clause (1). In the law enacted by the Parliament in this regard i.e. Central Sales Tax Act, Section 5 reads as follows :

"5. When is a sale or purchase of goods said to take place in the course of import or export:-

(1) A sale or purchase of goods shall be deemed to take place in the course of the export of the goods out of the territory of India only if the sale or purchase either occasions such export or is effected by a transfer of documents of title to the goods after the goods have crossed the customs frontiers of India;

(2) A sale or purchase of goods shall be deemed to take place in the course of the import of the goods into the territory of India only if the sale W. A. No. 2665 of 2015 : 10 : or purchase either occasions such import or is effected by a transfer of documents of title to the goods before the goods have crossed the customs frontiers of India.

[(3) 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.] (4) The provisions of sub-section (3) shall not apply to any sale or purchase of goods unless the dealer selling the goods furnishes to the prescribed authority in the prescribed manner a declaration duly filled and signed by the exporter to whom the goods are sold in a prescribed form obtained from the prescribed authority.

(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-

section (1), if any designated Indian carrier purchases Aviation Turbine Fuel for the purposes of its international flight, such purchase shall be deemed to take place in course of the export of goods out of the territory of India.

W. A. No. 2665 of 2015 : 11 :

Explanation:- For the purpose of this sub-

section, "designated Indian carrier" means any carrier which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf.]"

In view of the specific definition of the term "crossing the customs frontiers of India" as defined under Section 2 (ab) of the CST Act, the meanings of the terms under the CST Act have to be read and understood as attributable to the words/phrases under the Customs Act. As rightly observed by the learned single Judge, sale effected to a unit in the Special Economic Zone as such cannot be deemed to be an export for the purpose of the CST Act.

12. The Supreme Court observed in ITDC Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and another [(2012) 3 SCC 204] that in the 'duty free shops' established at various International Airports, there is sale directly to the customers before clearing the customs frontier. It has been held that such duty free shops are deemed to be outside the territory of India and hence the said sales are not taxable by the State. This position is sought to be relied on by the appellant, pointing out that the term 'export' has been defined under Section 2 (m) of the Special Economic Zones Act 2005, which reads as follows :

W. A. No. 2665 of 2015 : 12 :

"2.Definitions.-In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-

(m) "export" means-

(i) taking goods, or providing services, out of India, from a special Economic Zone, by land, sea or air or by any other mode, whether physical or otherwise; or

(ii) supplying goods, or providing services, from the Domestic Tariff Area to a Unit or Developer; or

(iii) supplying goods, or providing services, from one Unit to another Unit or Developer, in the same or different special Economic Zone;"

The appellant is placing reliance on sub clause (ii) of Section 2

(m). The learned single Judge has extracted definition of the term 'export' under Section 2 (m) [there appears to be an inadvertent typing error in so far as all the three sub clauses "(i) (ii) and (iii)"

have not been reproduced, but for clause (i) correctly given, whereas clause (iii) has been shown as clause (ii); omitting to extract clause (ii)]. Placing reliance on clause (ii) of Section 2 (m), the case put forth by the appellant is that under the Special Economic Zones Act, supply of goods from a 'Domestic Tariff Area' to a unit situated in Special Economic Zone, by itself, is an export and as such, no tax is payable under the local enactment. This W. A. No. 2665 of 2015 : 13 : Court finds it difficult to agree to the said proposition for various reasons as discussed below.

13. Coming to the Scheme of the Special Economic Zones Act, 'exemption' is dealt with under two heads i.e Section 7 as well as Section 50. Section 7 reads as follows :

"7. Exemption from taxes, duties or cess.- Any goods or services exported out of, or imported into, or procured from the Domestic Tariff Area by.-

(i) a Unit in a Special Economic Zone; or

(ii) a Developer, shall, subject to such terms, conditions and limitations, as may be prescribed, be exempt from the payment of taxes, duties or cess under all enactments specified in the First Schedule."

The above provision clearly stipulates that exemption from taxes, duties or cess on any goods imported into or exported out of the Special Economic Zone, to a unit in a Special Economic Zone, shall be subject to such terms and conditions as may be prescribed in respect of the tax due or cess under all enactments specified under the first schedule. Since the enactments specified in the first schedule are Central enactments, it deals with the powers of the Central Government. KVAT Act, under which the tax liability is W. A. No. 2665 of 2015 : 14 : now sought to be mulcted upon the appellant, is absolutely not an enactment in the 'first schedule' and hence Section 7 of the Act is not applicable. That apart, such exemption pre-supposes the exigency to tax, which shall be subject to such terms, conditions and limitations, as may be prescribed. It is settled law that the term "as may be prescribed" means as prescribed under the Rules. No Rule prescribing any such terms, conditions or limitation is brought to the notice of this Court by the appellant, so as to invoke Section 7 and to answer the position in favour of her.

14. It is also relevant to note that the exemption under Section 7 of the Special Economic Zones Act, in relation to tax liability with reference to any enactment mentioned under the first schedule [Central Statute], can be claimed only subject to the terms/conditions/limitations as may be prescribed. As such, the benefit under Section 7, if at all any, can be claimed only on issuance of Rules in this regard, in exercise of the rule making power given under the Statute, and till such time, the provision can only remain dormant. It will get activated only on formulation of necessary rules prescribing the terms/conditions/limitations and never before. This is more so since it is a matter of 'exemption' W. A. No. 2665 of 2015 : 15 : from the existing position as to the liability to satisfy tax. The scope of similar provision in the Act and as to the dormancy had come up for scrutiny of a Full Bench of this Court [in relation to the amendment in Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules thereunder] and the position in this regard has already been explained as per the decision reported in 2016 (3) KLT 551 [Pradeep U.R. Vs. Kerala State Co-operative Election Comission - to which one of us was a member (PRRM (J)]. We find support from the said ruling as well.

15. Coming to Section 50 of the Special Economic Zones Act, it deals with the power of the State Government to grant exemption. The provision reads as follows :

"50. Power of State Government to grant exemption.- The State Government may, for the purposes of giving effect to the provisions of this Act, notify policies for Developers and Units and take suitable steps for enactment of any law-

(a) granting exemption from the State taxes, levies and duties to the Developer or the entrepreneur;

(b) delegating the powers conferred upon any person or authority under any State Act to the Development Commissioner in relation to the Developer W. A. No. 2665 of 2015 : 16 : or the entrepreneur."

16. There is a vital distinction between the terminology used under Sections 7 and 50; in so far as the obligation under Section 7 is 'mandatory', by virtue of the usage of the expression 'shall' [of course, subject to terms, conditions and limitation as may be prescribed]; whereas the exemption under Section 50 dealing with the State Government is 'directory', as the expression used is "may". No notification is stated as issued under Section 50 of the Act, nor any such notification is brought to the notice of this Court so as to claim the benefit under Section 50 of the Act. As it stands so, though it is stipulated under Section 53 of the Act that a Special Economic Zone shall, on and from the appointed day, be deemed to be a territory outside the customs territory of India for the purpose of undertaking the authorized operation and further that, though the Act is to have overriding effect by virtue of Section 51 of the very same enactment, it does not promote the case of the appellant in any manner. This is more so when no inconsistency is pointed out between the provisions of the Special Economic Zones Act and the KVAT Act, to attract Section 50 of the former Act. On the other hand, Section 13 (1) of the KVAT Act W. A. No. 2665 of 2015 : 17 : itself states that every sale 'in the course of export' shall be a 'zero rate sale'. The only point to be considered is whether the sale effected by the appellant was 'in the course of export or not'.

17. Scope of the words 'in the course of export' had come up for consideration before the Apex Court, with reference to the provisions under the CST Act, in State of Karnataka Vs. Azad Coach Builders Private Limited and another [(2010) 9 SCC 524]. The observations made by the Apex Court in paragraphs 26, 27 and 28 are relevant, which are extracted below :

"26. When we analyze all these decisions in the light of the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Amending Act 103 of 1976 and on the interpretation placed on Section 5(3) of the CST Act, the following principles emerge :

- To constitute a sale in the course of export there must be an intention on the part of both the buyer and the seller to export;

- There must be obligation to export, and there must be an actual export.

- The obligation may arise by reason of statute, contract between the parties, or from mutual understanding or agreement between them, or even from the nature of the transaction which links the sale W. A. No. 2665 of 2015 : 18 : to export.

- To occasion export there must exist such a bond between the contract of sale and the actual exportation, that each link is inextricably connected with the one immediately preceding it, without which a transaction sale cannot be called a sale in the course of export of goods out of the territory of India."

27. The phrase 'sale in the course of export' comprises in itself three essentials : (i) that there must be a sale: (ii) that goods must actually be exported and

(iii) that the sale must be a part and parcel of the export. The word 'occasion' is used as a verb and means 'to cause' or 'to be the immediate cause of. Therefore, the words 'occasioning the export' mean the factors, which were immediate course of export. The words 'to comply with the agreement or order' mean all transactions which are inextricably linked with the agreement or order occasioning that export. The expression 'in relation to' are words of comprehensiveness, which might both have a direct significance as well as an indirect significance, depending on the context in which it is used and they are not words of restrictive content and ought not be so construed. Therefore, the test to be applied is, whether there is an in-severable link between the local W. A. No. 2665 of 2015 : 19 : sale or purchase on export and if it is clear that the local sale or purchase between the parties is inextricably linked with the export of the goods, then a claim under Section 5(3) for exemption from State Sales Tax is justified, in which case, the same goods theory has no application.

28. The facts of this case clearly reveal that the transaction between the assessee and the exporter is inextricably connected with the export of the goods to Sri Lanka. The communication between the foreign buyer and the exporter reveals that the foreign buyer wanted the bus bodies to be manufactured by the assessee under the specifications stipulated by the foreign buyer. The bus bodies constructed and manufactured by the assessee could not be of any use in the local market, but were specifically manufactured to suit the specifications and requirements of the foreign buyer. In the Purchase Order placed on the assessee by the exporter, it is specifically indicated that the bus bodies have to be manufactured in accordance with the specifications provided by the foreign buyer, failure to do so might result in cancellation of the export order. The assessee in this case has succeeded in showing that the sale of bus bodies have occasioned the export of goods. When the transaction between the assessee and W. A. No. 2665 of 2015 : 20 : the exporter and the transaction between the exporter and foreign buyer are inextricably connected with each other, in our view, the 'same goods' theory has no application."

18. As made clear by the Apex Court, the transaction between the assesee and exporters should be inextricably connected with the export of goods. The burden is entirely upon the assessee, relating to the sale or purchase of goods and to establish that the penultimate sale [to be within the purview of Section 5 (3) of the CST Act to avoid the tax] is inextricably connected with the export of goods by the exporter to the foreign buyer. The law declared by the Apex Court was applied by this Court in a common judgment dated 29.07.2016 in W.A. Nos. 2246, 2249 and 2253 of 2006, reported in 2016 (4) KLT 191 [Gupta Enterprises Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and Ors.] - to which one of us [PRRM (J)] was a member. It was also a case where tax exemption was sought for in respect of the auction sale of 'sandalwood' effected by the Forest Department of Kerala, stating that it will come within the purview of Section 5 (3) of the CST Act. Among other things, the "Same Goods Theory" was also sought to be pressed into service. The stand of the Department was that the W. A. No. 2665 of 2015 : 21 : commodity sold was 'sandalwood' whereas the goods exported were 'chips, dust' etc. which was not the same goods sold by the Department and hence outside the purview of Section 5 (3) of the CST Act. 'Sandalwood', admittedly, is a restricted item, which as such cannot be exported. After purchasing the Sandalwood from the Forest Department, it was converted to exportable commodity, in the form of chips, dust etc. This Court held that there was a 'manufacturing process' involved in it, making it different and distinct from the commodity/goods purchased. After detailed discussion of the facts and relevant provisions of law and the precedents, the position was answered against the assessee, declaring it in favour of the Revenue. It virtually stands against the case mooted by the appellant herein as well. Though there is a case for the appellant that the liability to pay tax stands totally 'excluded', by virtue of the provisions of the SEZ Act, read in the light of Article 286 of the Constitution of India, and hence that it is not a question of 'exemption'; the position could not be substantiated by the appellant to the satisfaction of this Court.

19. Even otherwise, Section 5 (3) of the CST Act will not come to the rescue of the petitioner. Sub section (4) of Section 5 W. A. No. 2665 of 2015 : 22 : clearly says that the provision under sub-section (3) shall not apply to any sale or purchase of any goods; unless the Dealer selling the goods furnishes to the prescribed authority, in the prescribed manner, a declaration duly filled and signed by the Exporter to whom the goods are sold [in the prescribed form]. The appellant does not have a case that the appellant Exporter had duly filled in and signed any declaration and handed it over to the Dealer/Seller [Forest Department of the State of Kerala] and no such form has been submitted by the State/Forest Department before the first respondent to have extended the benefit under Section 5 (3) of the Act.

20. During the course of hearing, a submission was made on behalf of the appellant that by virtue of Section 6 (7) (b) of the KVAT Act, Special Economic Zone will stand automatically 'exempted' from the liability to tax under the KVAT Act. The said provision reads as follows :

6. Levy of tax on sale or purchase of goods:-

(7) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-

section (1), *******

(a) ******* W. A. No. 2665 of 2015 : 23 :

(b) sale of any building materials, industrial inputs, plant and machinery including components, spares, tools and consumables in relation thereto to any developer or industrial unit or establishments situated in any Special Economic Zone in the State for setting up the unit or use in the manufacture of other goods shall, subject to such conditions or restrictions, as may be prescribed, be exempted from tax].

It is quite evident from the above provision that the exemption given is only in respect of sale of building materials/industrial inputs/plant and machinery including components, spares, tools and consumables in relation to any developer or establishment situated in any special economic zone for setting up unit or in the manufacture of other goods, subject to terms/instructions as may be prescribed. Obviously, it does not extend to the goods sold for the purpose of export (as alleged). That apart, it is in respect of a sale to any Special Economic Zone in the State. The terms "in the State" means in the State where the State law is applicable, i.e. situated within the State of Kerala. Admittedly, in this case, the appellant does not have any business place in the State of Kerala, the unit being situated in the Madras Export Processing Zone, W. A. No. 2665 of 2015 : 24 : Thambaram, Chennai. As such, Section 6 (7) (b) of the KVAT Act does not come to the rescue of the appellant in any manner.

21. Earlier, the Apex Court had held as per the decision rendered in State of Orissa & Anr. Vs. K.B. Saha & Sons Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. etc [(2007) 6 SCALE 284] that a the sale of 'Kendu leaves' [which is also a controlled commodity like Sandalwood], pursuant to the auction held in one State and taken to another State [from Orissa to West Bengal] was an integral part of sale and hence it was an 'interstate sale'. The correctness of the said decision was doubted, which was referred to a Larger Bench as per order dated 07.08.2007 in Civil Appeal No. 2421 of 2006 and connected cases, holding that the view expressed in (2007) 6 SCALE 284 [cited supra] required reconsideration. Later, the matter was considered by Larger Bench along with such other matters, when it was brought to the notice of the Court that the parties did not want to contest the matter and that the assessee wanted to participate in the proceedings, to have the assessment finalized. In the light of the said submissions, the appeals were disposed of without answering the reference; leaving it open to be answered in appropriate cases.

W. A. No. 2665 of 2015 : 25 :

22. Referring to the various judicial pronouncements till date, the Apex Court in Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Hyderabad Vs. Desai Beedi Company [(2015) 2 VST 242 (SC)

- 3 member Bench] held that in order to constitute an 'interstate sale' the movement of goods should be occasioned by the sale and that the same must be inextricably connected with the sale. The assessee in the said case was engaged in the manufacture of 'Beedi' and was having factory and head office in Maharashtra, with a registered branch office in Andhra Pradesh. The 'Beedi leaves' were being purchased from Andhra Pradesh in the auction conducted by the Forest Department and thereafter it was being despatched to the head office in Maharashtra. The branch office claimed exemption on the turn over stating that it was an 'interstate sale'. After different rounds of litigation before the statutory authorities, the matter reached the Apex Court at the instance of the Revenue challenging the verdict passed in favour of the assessee by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The Apex Court observed that the sale was complete in the State of Andhra Pradesh, that the delivery of goods took place from the godown of the seller/Department in the State of Andhra Pradesh, that the W. A. No. 2665 of 2015 : 26 : movement of the goods from the godown was at the instance of the purchaser and that the final destination of the consignment in respect of the goods sold by the seller was inconsequential to the sale transaction. It was accordingly held that the events of sale of goods by the seller and movement of goods from the State of Andhra Pradesh to another State were not inextricably connected, but independent of each other and hence it was never an instance of 'interstate sale'. The appeal preferred by the Revenue was allowed and the verdict passed by the High Court was set aside accordingly, restoring the order passed by the revisional authority.

23. The Madras High Court had also an occasion to consider whether the sale of 'Sandalwood' in an auction effected in the State of Tamil Nadu and the movement of the goods to another State at the instance of the successful bidder, who was having the place of business in the latter State, would constitute an 'interstate sale' and whether demand of payment of tax under the Tamil Nadu VAT Act was justified or not. After detailed discussion of the relevant facts and the provisions of law, the Bench held in Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Ltd. Vs. District Forest Officer, Sathyamangalam and others [2005 (140) STC 112] that the W. A. No. 2665 of 2015 : 27 : terms of the Tender-cum-auction sale notification covered all the registered Sandalwood contractors of Salem Division and that there was no differentiation as 'local buyer' and 'interstate buyer' (Karnataka). The terms of the notification were quite specific; making it obligatory to satisfy the tax under the State enactment. The entire transaction took place and were completed in the State of Tamil Nadu and accordingly interference was declined and the demand raised by the State was upheld, accepting their case that it was a 'local sale'.

24. The next question in the said context is with regard to the terms of the Tender, place of sale and time of completion of sale. Admittedly, the sale was notified as per Ext. P5 notification, subject to the tender conditions/general conditions and Ext. P6 special conditions, which clearly indicated that the sale was to be effected at the godown of the Forest Department, Marayoor in Kerala. Only those who chose to abide by the conditions could participate in the auction and it was accordingly that the appellant also participated in the Tender, accepting all the conditions stipulated in this regard. In an auction sale, the sale is complete when it is confirmed 'on the fall of the hammer' as held by the W. A. No. 2665 of 2015 : 28 : Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Kil Kotagiri Tea and Coffee Estates Company Vs. State of Kerala [STC - 1965 - 16

- 467]. The position stands explained further by the Apex Court in the subsequent decision in Consolidated Coffee Ltd. Vs. Coffee Board, Bangalore [1980 (46) STC 164].

25. In the instant case, the auction was by way of 'e-tender'. The Tender quoted by the appellant was found as the highest and accepted in respect of 'three lots' as communicated and confirmed as borne by Exts. P7 to P10. At no point of time had the appellant informed anything in deviation to the Tender conditions to the respondents, especially to the effect that they were not liable to pay any tax under the local law or that the intended purchase was to be 'in the course of export' through their unit situated in a Special Economic Zone in Tamil Nadu. It was much after completion of sale that such a request was made, which was turned down as per Ext. P14. It will be worthwhile to go through the relevant terms/conditions of Ext. P5/P6 'e-auction' to have a better idea and understanding as to the course and events.

26. In Ext. P5 auction notification dated 22.12.2014, it was specifically made clear by the authorities of the Forest Department W. A. No. 2665 of 2015 : 29 : that the sale of Sandalwood by 'e-auction' scheduled on 5th and 6th of February, 2015 would be at the Government Sandalwood Depot, Marayoor. On becoming successful, it was also stated therein, that the successful bidder had to remit 35% of the bid value [after adjusting the EMD already paid] within the time as specified therein; clearly stating that mode of payment shall be through 'e- treasury' of the Government of Kerala or Demand Draft (DD) drawn in favour of the Range Forest Officer, Marayoor; payable at the State Bank of Travancore, Munnar or by cash in Sub-Treasury, Devikulam.

27. In Ext. P6 special terms and conditions, as per Clause 4, the bidder or his authorised representative was granted liberty to inspect the materials, as specified, at the Marayoor depot in Kerala. In Clause 5 it was made clear that the auction sale would be 'As is where is and No Complaint Basis' only and further that no plea or misunderstanding or ignorance or conditions put forth subsequent to any confirmation of sale shall be accepted. It was further reiterated in Clause 6 that conditional offers would not be accepted/entertained.

28. Under Clause 11 of Ext. P6, it was stipulated that W. A. No. 2665 of 2015 : 30 : KVAT, FDT, TCT and other taxes shall be payable as per the prevailing tariff [wherever applicable at the time of delivery] before taking delivery of the materials. Under Clause 14 (a) (iii), the mode of payment of balance amount was stipulated as either through e-treasury, Government of Kerala or Demand Draft (DD) drawn in favour of Range Officer, Marayoor payable at State Bank of Travancore, Munnar or by way of cash in Sub Treasury, Devikulam. It was further made clear under Clause 14 (a) (v) that the prevalent rate of KVAT (at present 14.5%) would be applicable to all successful bidders irrespective of destination of transportation of materials and purpose. Under Clause 14 (c), it has been categorically stated that the successful bidder will be able to remove all the bid Sandalwood only after he had remitted all the required payments as per the conditions of 'e-auction'. Under Clause 14 (d), the successful bidder is allowed to remove the logs without paying any ground rent within 40 days and a grace period of further four months is given, subject to payment of ground rent under four different slabs. Under Clause 15 (e) it is mentioned that if the successful bidder fails to remove the lot even after the extended period, all the lots will be re-auctioned; subject to the W. A. No. 2665 of 2015 : 31 : terms mentioned therein. Under Clause 26 (e), it is specifically mentioned that the persons/firms in whose name the sale is confirmed is forbidden to resell the wood in turn or to make negotiations with any other persons for such sale till all dues are paid to the Government and the Sandalwood is taken delivery of and removed from the sandalwood depot premises.

29. The above terms clearly establish that the sale was notified to be held in the Government depot of Marayoor in Kerala, that the successful bidder had to satisfy the entire due amount including the tax under the KVAT Act then and there, that there will not be any difference or discrimination between the bidders participating in the auction sale and further that no conditional offer will be accepted/entertained. As mentioned already, at no point of time had the appellant stated that the offer made by him in 're- auction' was subject to exemption to pay any tax under the KVAT Act or that the goods were being purchased 'in the course of export' through the unit in a Special Economic Zone situated in another State and that no tax under the local Statute would be payable. There is no such case as well. If at all any such case was there, the bid would not have been accepted, in view of the W. A. No. 2665 of 2015 : 32 : specific conditions set forth in Exts.P6. It was accordingly that the appellant participated in the Tender without raising any objections as to the tender conditions. The term "wherever applicable" under Clause 11 of Ext. P6 is with reference to different types of taxes mentioned in the opening portion i.e. KVAT, FDT, TCS and other Taxes, as the case may be. The mandatory requirement to satisfy KVAT is stated under Clause 14 (a) (v) as well; when it says that prevalent rate of KVAT (at present 14.5%) will be applicable to all successful bidders irrespective of destination of transportation of materials and purpose. Having participated in the bid without placing any rider or protest, it is no more open for the appellant to disown the liability, taking a "u turn" after becoming successful in the bid. It is also very relevant to note that the appellant had not chosen to challenge any of the above specific conditions with reference to the status/purpose/nature of transaction sought to be made after issuance of Exts. P5/P6 notification; despite the fact that the auction sale took place only after '40 days' from the date of publication of Ext. P5 notification. No such challenge is ever raised even after the sale, in the present writ petition/writ appeal as well.

W. A. No. 2665 of 2015 : 33 :

30. The issue can be approached from another angle as well. Unlike the case of goods brought into the DFS [Duty Free Shop] situated in an International Airport and sold to the customers, the goods in the instant case (Sandalwood) exclusively belong to Forest Department/State. It is open for the owner of the goods to stipulate the terms for sale of the goods of the owner, to the extent it is within the four walls of law. Apart from the revenue to be obtained towards the value of the property to the State/Forest Department, the State is also entitled to get appropriate extent of tax as well, as in any other instance of sale, if covered by any taxable event. The sale conditions were specifically laid down so as to protect the interest of the State/Department in all respects and it was accepting such terms that the appellant had participated in the bid. The terms of the 'e-auction' notification and the special conditions by way of Exts. P5/P6 clearly indicated that it was nothing but a 'local sale'. Having purchased the goods by participating in such sale and having effected the entire payment in terms of the Tender notification/Special conditions and having taken delivery of the goods from the godown of the State/Department in Kerala, the subsequent conduct of the W. A. No. 2665 of 2015 : 34 : appellant/bidder, whether he wanted to sell it within the State of Kerala or intended to take it from this State to some other place or whether he wanted to effect some export of the product manufactured by making use of the timber/Sandalwood purchased from the Department, is of no consequence. The sale is complete in the State of Kerala and by virtue of the terms notified, agreed and accepted, it was exigible to tax under the KVAT Act, which is not a legally or factually forbidden fruit. In the said circumstances, this Court is of the firm view that the challenge raised by the appellant against the verdict passed by the learned single Judge is devoid of any merit. Interference is declined and the Writ Appeal is dismissed.

sd/-

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE sd/-

A. M. BABU, JUDGE kmd /True copy/ P.A. to Judge

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court