1969 (10) TMI 64 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Exemption of Rs. 40,393-6-0 on the ground of inter-State sales.
2. Exemption of Rs. 2,30,880-11-1 claimed for sales in the course of export outside Indian territory.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Exemption of Rs. 40,393-6-0 on the Ground of Inter-State Sales:
The first item in question consists of two sub-items:
- Rs. 16,672-2-0 related to transactions before 6th June 1955.
- Rs. 23,631-4-0 related to transactions on 22nd February 1956.

The assessee contended that the transactions of Rs. 16,672-2-0 should be exempt as they fall within the period covered by the Sales Tax Laws Validation Act, 1956. The court examined whether these transactions fall within the purview of the explanation to Article 286(1)(a). It was established that the rice was sent outside Andhra Pradesh, sales were f.o.r. Kakinada, and amounts were realized from local dealers. The court highlighted that actual delivery means physical delivery, not constructive or notional delivery. The court concluded that the actual delivery took place in the destination State, not Andhra Pradesh, thus exempting this turnover from tax.

For the second sub-item of Rs. 23,631-4-0, the court applied the principle underlying Section 3(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, which states that a sale is deemed to take place in the course of inter-State trade if effected by a transfer of documents of title during the movement of goods from one State to another. These transactions were effected by endorsement of documents of title while the goods were in movement, and thus were exempt from tax.

2. Exemption of Rs. 2,30,880-11-1 Claimed for Sales in the Course of Export:
This item involved transactions with a company whose head office was in Bombay, and the sales bills were issued in their name. The assessee argued that these goods were exported to England, and the final appropriation was made only in England after tests regarding quality and quantity, contending that these transactions were in the course of export.

The court noted that to claim exemption under Article 286(1)(b), it must be shown that the sale took place in the course of export. This requires an integrated activity where the sale and export are so connected that they cannot be interrupted without breaching the contract. The court found no material evidence of such an integrated contract between the dealer and the company. Adjustments in account books alone were insufficient to prove an integrated contract for export. The court concluded that the transactions did not meet the requirements of a sale in the course of export and thus were not exempt from sales tax.

The court also denied the request to remand the case for additional evidence, noting that no attempt was made to produce relevant material at any stage of the case.

Conclusion:
The court partly allowed the revision:
- The first item covering transactions of Rs. 40,393-6-0 was exempt from sales tax.
- The second item covering transactions amounting to Rs. 2,30,880-11-1 was not exempt from sales tax.

The parties were directed to bear their own costs. Advocate's fee was set at Rs. 100. The petition was partly allowed.