1979 (12) TMI 144 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Determination of taxable turnover for sales of dressed hides and skins exported.
2. Examination of privity of contract between assessees and foreign buyers.
3. Assessment of export sales transactions for tax liability.

Analysis:
The High Court of Madras adjudicated on two appeals challenging the Board of Revenue's order regarding the taxable turnover of sales of dressed hides and skins exported by two assessees. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner had previously ruled in favor of the assessees, considering the sales as export sales exempt from tax. The Board, however, contended that there was no privity of contract between the assessees and foreign buyers, asserting that the transactions were local sales assessable to tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The critical issue revolved around whether the assessees directly exported goods or if the transactions were conducted through agents.

In the case of C.A. Akhtar & Company, the export transactions were executed through Sulaiman & Company, acting as agents. The affidavit by Ommahani detailed the export process where Sulaiman & Company handled assortment, packing, and export of goods on behalf of Akhtar & Company. The court noted uncontradicted statements affirming the agency relationship and the handling of export-related activities by Sulaiman & Company. Similarly, in the case of Shafeeq Ahmed & Company, Abdul Shukoor & Company acted as agents for export transactions, as per the agreement between the parties.

The court emphasized the importance of privity of contract between the assessees and foreign buyers in determining tax liability for export sales. Referring to previous judgments, the court highlighted that as long as the agent acts on behalf of the principal and not as the owner of the goods, privity of contract exists between the principal and the foreign buyer. The court concluded that the transactions in both cases were export transactions entered into by the assessees through their agents, warranting exemption from tax.

The Board's failure to adequately consider the agency relationship and privity of contract led to an incorrect assessment of tax liability. The court upheld the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's orders, ruling in favor of the assessees and allowing the appeals with costs. The judgment clarified the legal position on export transactions and the significance of agency relationships in determining tax liability for such sales.