1983 (6) TMI 164 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
- Entitlement to claim exemption on a turnover under section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act based on penultimate sales for export.

Analysis:
The judgment of the Madras High Court in this tax case revolved around the question of whether the assessee was eligible for exemption on a turnover of Rs. 18,09,254.44 under section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The assessee contended that the turnover represented penultimate sales that led to export, thus qualifying for exemption under section 5(3). However, the crucial requirement for claiming such exemption is demonstrating a prior agreement of sale between the dealer and the foreign buyer, with the local purchase being the penultimate sale before export. The Supreme Court precedent in Consolidated Coffee Ltd. v. Coffee Board, Bangalore was cited to support this principle. In this case, the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence of a prior sale agreement, relying solely on affidavits from exporters stating the goods were purchased to fulfill export commitments. The assessing authority, Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and Tribunal all held that without concrete proof of a penultimate sale, the exemption could not be granted. The Tribunal specifically highlighted the absence of original contracts or contemporaneous documents to substantiate the claim. The Tribunal's decision was challenged on the grounds that the affidavits should have been considered as substantial evidence, but the High Court clarified that while affidavits can be admissible, their weight is subject to the presence of corroborative documents. The Court emphasized that mere production of affidavits does not automatically validate the claim for exemption, and the Tribunal was justified in requiring additional evidence. Ultimately, the Court agreed with the Tribunal's conclusion, stating that the exporters could have easily provided the necessary agreements to establish the sequence of sales leading to export. Consequently, the tax case was dismissed, affirming the denial of exemption to the assessee.