1961 (9) TMI 62 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether certain sales by a partnership firm are exempt from taxation under the Madras General Sales Tax Act on the grounds of export sales or sales in the course of export.
2. Determination of the nature of sales made to specific entities: P. Haji Abdul Wahab and Sons, Messrs Rallis India Ltd., and Messrs Gordon Woodroffe and Co.
3. Review of the Appellate Tribunal's decision on the sales in question.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a partnership firm dealing in hides and skins, claimed exemption from taxation for three specific sales in the year 1955-56 under the Madras General Sales Tax Act. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer initially classified one sale as an export sale but deemed the other two as local sales. The Commercial Tax Officer, upon revision, reversed the exemption for the export sale. The Appellate Tribunal later ruled that all three sales were local sales, not falling under Article 286(1)(b) of the Constitution. The issue at hand is whether these sales qualify as exempt from taxation due to their export nature.

2. The sale to Gordon Woodroffe and Co. was determined to be a sale in the course of export, as the property in the goods passed beyond the customs frontier. This decision aligns with a previous case, confirming the exclusion of this sale from the firm's turnover. However, the sales to Haji Abdul Wahab and Sons and Rallis India Ltd. were deemed local sales by the Tribunal. The contract terms with Haji Abdul Wahab and Sons did not indicate an export sale, as the property did not pass on delivery to the Madras godown. Similarly, the contract with Rallis India Ltd. showed that the property passed upon delivery at their godown, making it a local sale. The Tribunal's findings were upheld in this regard.

3. The petitioner sought a review of the Tribunal's decision, which was dismissed. The High Court allowed the revision in part, granting relief only for the sale to Gordon Woodroffe and Co. The remaining sales were considered local sales, leading to the dismissal of the revision petitions. The Court made no order as to costs, concluding the judgment.