Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.21 seconds)State Of Travancore-Cochin Andothers vs The Bombay Co. Ltd.State Of ... on 16 October, 1952
7. The State of Travancore-Cochin v. Bombay Co. Ltd., Alleppey, 1952-3 STC 434 = (AIR 1952 SC 366) is the first of these cases and is known as the first Travancore-Cochin case. In that case the Supreme Court was dealing with a set of cases involving export sales to foreign buyers on c.i.f. or f.o.b. terms. The question was whether the sales of that type were the sales "in the course of the export of the goods out of the territory of India" within the meaning of Article 286(1)(b) of the Constitution. The Sales Tax authorities rejected the claim of the assessees as in their view the sales were completed before the goods were shipped and could not, therefore, be considered to have taken place in the course of the export. After examining the rival contentious, the Court observed at p. 438 (of STC) = (at p. 36T of AIR):
State Of Travancore-Cochin And Others vs Shanmugha Vilas Cashew Nut Factoryand ... on 8 May, 1953
8. The State of Travancore-Cochin v. Shanmugha Vilas Cashewnut Factory, (1953) 4 STC 205 = (AIR 1953 SC 333) is known as the 2nd Trav.-Cochin case. In that case the Supreme Court drew a distinction between an "export sale" and a "sale for export". The question involved in that case was as to whether the last purchase of goods made by an exporter for the purpose of exporting them to implement orders already received from a foreign buyer or expected to be received subsequently in the course of the business would also be covered by the exemption under Article 286(1)(b) of the Constitution. The answer given by the Supreme Court was in the negative. It was held that a sale in favour of au exporter who bought the goods with the intention of exporting them outside India was not covered by the exemption contained in Article 286(1)(b) for the simple reason that such a sale did not occasion the export. In other words, there was no direct and immediate link between the sale to an exporter and the subsequent exportation of the goods by him. In the words of the Supreme Court "the purchase for the purpose of export by a dealer in the State from another dealer in the State is only a home transaction and it is only where the goods were sold to a buyer abroad that the sale can be said to have occasioned an export."
Ben Gorm Nilgiri Plantations Company, ... vs Sales Tax Officer, Special Circle, ... on 10 April, 1964
9. The next case in the series of the cases of this nature is the case of Ben Gorm Nilgiri Plantation Co., Coonoor v. Sales Tax Officer, Spl. Circle, Ernakulam, 1964-15 STC 753 = (AIR 1964 SC 1752). This also was a case of sale for export as distinguished from export sales and was concerned with the export of tea from India. In the State of Kerala, trade in tea is controlled and is carried on through certain definite channels. The manufacturers of tea are granted from the Tea Board allotment of export quota rights. The tea is then sent to a warehouse where it is auctioned. At the auction sale certain agents and intermediaries of foreign buyers bid for purchasing tea. The chests of tea are delivered to the buyers at the warehouse. The agents or intermediaries of the foreign buyers then obtain licence from the Government for the export of tea and thereafter the tea is exported outside the territory of India. The question was whether the sale by auction to me agents or intermediaries of the foreign buyers was a sale in the course of export and was exempt from the sales tax. It was held by the Supreme Court that such transaction of sale by auction did not occasion the export of the goods even though it was known to the owners of tea that the tea was intended to be exported outside India. It was held that between the sale and export there was no such bond as would justify the inference that the sale and the export formed part of a single transaction. In the course of his judgment, Mr. Justice Shah observed at p. 759 (of STC)=(at p. 1755 of AIR):
The Central Excise Act, 1944
Dulichand Hardwari Mull vs State Of Bihar And Anr. on 22 March, 1963
13. A somewhat similar case came up before the Patna High Court in 1963. The case is that of Dulicnand Hardwari Mull v. State of Bihar, AIR 1963 Pat 359. In that case also the assessee had exported certain articles to Nepal which were taken delivery of by the purchasers at the railway terminus in the Indian territory and were men transported by them into Nepal territory. There also the Sales Tax authorities refused the assessee's claim under Article 286(1)(b) relying mainly upon the fact that the delivery of the goods had been taken by the purchasers in the Indian territory.
Damodar Dass Vishwanath vs Commissioner, Sales Tax on 20 January, 1967
(2) Damodar Dass Vishwanath v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P., Lucknow, S.T.C. No. 137 of 1964, D/-20-1-1967 (All.
1