Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.48 seconds)The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956
Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 7 October, 1985
10. Although the above statement of law by the Supreme Court is in respect of export sale or purchase, it is not difficult to understand that the principle as to the privity of contract between the seller and the buyer and the sale by transfer of documents in course of the voyage are the two tests to apply to the case of import sale. The case which should be referred to illustrate this, in our view, is Binani Bros. (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [1974] 33 STC 254. In that case, the assessee had entered into contracts with the Director-General of Supplies and Disposals for the supply of certain goods. Thereafter, the assessee procured the requisite import licence and imported the goods from abroad and supplied the same to the Director-General of Supplies and Disposals in fulfilment of the contract. The assessee contended that the import had been occasioned by the sale contract entered into by the assessee with the local buyers and therefore had satisfied the criteria laid down by section 5(2) of the Act. The Supreme Court said :
Coffee Board, Bangalore vs Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Madras & ... on 29 October, 1969
The decision in National Tractors case made no reference to the decision of this Court in Coffee Board case .
Article 366 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Mohd. Serajuddin Etc vs State Of Orissa on 16 April, 1975
Export contracts entered into by the State Trading Corporation with the foreign buyers named them (India Cements Limited) as the manufacturers who would be executing the contract. Arbitration clause mentioned that the State Trading Corporation and Messrs. India Cements Limited would take part in arbitrations jointly. Thus, according to them, the ratio is Serajuddin's case , if applied to these facts, would indicate that even though they had no direct contract with the foreign buyers, their contract with the State Trading Corporation was so integrated with the latter's contract with the foreign buyer that, such sales by them were in the course of export and/or exports were occasioned by their sale only and not by any sales by the State Trading corporation to the foreign buyers independent of what they did not in manufacturing the goods and executing the contract.
The Deputy Commissioner Of ... vs Indian Explosives Ltd on 19 August, 1985
22. Coming to the case of Messrs. ABMTM Private Limited (petitioner in T.C. No. 439 of 1981), we however find that there are some facts which require a closer examination. How to know whether the petitioner only acted as an agent, the privity of contract being between heavy Vehicles Factory at Avadi and the foreign seller ? The Board of Revenue has rightly noticed the law that unless it was possible to conceive of sale between the foreign seller and the person who became the ultimate owner of the goods, there cannot be an agency by the intermediary, but this can be known by looking into all the attendant facts and all facts collateral to the import contract and actual import. The law stated in Binani Bros. case has never been in doubt. But then courts have distinguished Binani Bros. case by taking notice of such facts as in Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax v. Indian Explosives Ltd. . Such facts have been mentioned, which if found to exist, would clearly make the importer an agent for the real purchaser. We do no intend to say at this stage that there was no error committed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and that there was no occasion for the Board of Revenue to exercise its suo motu revisional power. The Board could exercise such suo motu revisional power (which power can be now exercised by the officer designated under the amended Act), if such facts were found existing, which were sufficient to hold the disputed turnover represented the sales made to the Director-General of Supplies and Disposals and not merely an import of goods for and on behalf of the Director-General of Supplies and Disposals and/or Heavy Vehicles Factory at Avadi. We do, however, take notice of the fact that it would not always be wrong to find in such import by an assessee, the character of an agent only. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner would not be wrong, if he noticed such facts in his order and accordingly decided to examine such turnover of the petitioner ABMTM Private Limited. The Board's order does not show what were the facts which prevailed with the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and why the Board decided to revise the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. What the order reveals is that there was a contract between the assessee and the foreign seller and that there was another contract between the assessee and the Director-General of Supplies and Disposals, who had placed an order with the assessee for the supply of goods to the heavy Vehicles Factory at Avadi. After referring to some of the authorities (case laws) including the law stated in Binani Bros. case and finding that certain documents revealed that the contract of sale was only between the assessee and the foreign seller, the Board has said,
"Even though the goods might be ultimately indented to the Heavy vehicles Factory that will not make the transaction as one of sale in the course of import."
State Of Madras vs Davar And Company Etc on 20 May, 1969
5. The problem that existed in the case of State of Madras v. Davar and Co. however, has been taken care of by introducing a definition to the expression "crossing the customs frontiers of India" in section 2(ab) of the Act as under :