Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.22 seconds)Ben Gorm Nilgiri Plantations Company, ... vs Sales Tax Officer, Special Circle, ... on 10 April, 1964
13. Thus, it is now well-established that there is a difference between a sale for export and a sale in the course of export. The delivery by the assessee of the goods on board as the agent of the State Trading Corporation is only in discharge of an obligation of a term of the contract between the assessee and the State Trading Corporation. It is the State Trading Corporation which had entered into the contract with the customer in U.A.R. There is absolutely no privity of contract between the assessee and the customer in U.A.R. Though the State Trading Corporation had procured the machinery from the assessee only for export, still the transaction of sale in the course of export was actually effected only by the State Trading Corporation. As pointed out in Ben Corm Nilgiri Plantations Co., Coonoor v. Sales Tax Officer, Special Circle, Ernakulam , the knowledge on the part of the assessee that the goods were to be exported had no relevance to the determination of the question whether the sale was in the course of export. Even though the assessee was to be paid for only out of the letter of credit opened by the foreign purchaser, and the payment to the assessee was thus simultaneous with the payment to the State Trading Corporation under the letter of credit, still the fact that the assessee was actually effecting a sale only in favour of the State Trading Corporation cannot be ignored. If there was an assignment of contract with the foreign customer, by the State Trading Corporation, in favour of the assessee, then the position would have been different. But that is not the case here. The assessee could not have filed a suit against the customer in U.A.R. for any default in payment of price. The assessee could only look to the State Trading Corporation for breach of any obligation under the contract.
M.R.K. Abdul Salam And Co. vs The Government Of Madras on 6 September, 1961
In the course of this judgment reference was made to the passage extracted earlier from the decision in Abdul Salam and Co. v. Government of Madras ([1962] 13 S.T.C. 629.). In relation to the passage it was pointed out by their Lordships that they were not concerned to decide whether there was evidence in that case on which the High Court could come to the conclusion that the sale occasioned the export and that they did not read the judgment as laying down a proposition that in all cases where there was a contract for purchase of goods in the taxing territory, between a local merchant and a foreign buyer acting through his agent, and the goods were after purchasing the same exported by the agent, the transaction must be deemed to be one in the course of export. In the same case it was also pointed out that the knowledge on the part of the assessee that the goods were intended to be exported did not furnish the necessary bond between the sale and the export. The judgment of the majority was dissented from by Wanchoo and Rajagopala Ayyangar, JJ. But, for our present purpose, it is not necessary to go into the judgment of the minority.
The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956
Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959
Yercaud Coffee Curing Works Ltd. vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 March, 1976
17. There are two other points which arise in some of these cases. One is with reference to the power of revision and the problem arises in T.C. (R) Nos. 1300 to 1302 of 1977 and 1393 of 1977. This point has already been covered by two decisions of this Court in Yercaud Coffee Curing Works Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu ([1977] 40 S.T.C. 531.)
K. Lakshmanaswami Chettiar And Sons vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 17 October, 1979
18. The only other point that survives for consideration arises in T.C. (R) Nos. 1300 to 1302 of 1977. This raises the question of limitation, which has already been dealt with in K. Lakshmanaswami Chettiar and Sons v. State of Tamil Nadu ([1980] 46 S.T.C. 327) and following the said judgment we hold that the assessment cannot be said to be time-barred.