2001 (2) TMI 1000 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the sales transactions effected by the petitioner are not exigible to tax under the provisions of either the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act (APGST Act) or the Central Sales Tax Act (CST Act).

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Taxability of Sales Transactions
The core issue in these tax revision cases is whether the sales transactions effected by the petitioner, a registered dealer under the APGST Act and CST Act, are not exigible to tax under the provisions of these Acts.

Contentions by the Petitioner:
The petitioner argued that the sales were effected in the course of exports and thus should not be subjected to tax under the APGST and CST Acts. The petitioner contended that the terms "export" and related terms were not defined under the APGST or CST Act but were defined under the Customs Act. The petitioner further argued that the adjudication by customs authorities, which treated the disputed sales as export sales, should be binding on the authorities under the APGST and CST Acts. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court decision in Collector of Customs, Calcutta v. Sun Industries [1988] 71 STC 149.

Contentions by the Respondent:
The learned Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes argued that the APGST and CST Acts are independent codes and fully empower the authorities to adjudicate issues arising under these Acts. The respondent contended that the earlier judgments of the Court in the petitioner's own case had already concluded the issue, and thus it was not open for the petitioner to raise the same pleas. The respondent relied on several decisions, including Spares Corporation v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1995] 97 STC 645 (AP) and others.

Court's Analysis:
The Court noted that the petitioner's earlier tax revision cases had been rejected, and the review petition was also dismissed. The Court proceeded to consider the case on its merits.

The petitioner argued that the sales were effected in the course of exports as the goods were delivered to foreign-going vessels on the high seas. However, the Court emphasized that the APGST and CST Acts are independent and the adjudications under the Customs Act are not binding on the authorities under these State Acts.

Section 5 of the CST Act:
The Court examined Section 5 of the CST Act, which defines when a sale or purchase of goods is deemed to take place in the course of import or export. The Court found that to prove a sale had occasioned in the course of export, it must be shown that the goods moved from a place inside India to a place outside India. Mere movement of goods out of India does not constitute export.

Findings:
The Court found that the sales were made to residents of Visakhapatnam, and the goods were delivered to trawlers for use during fishing operations on the high seas. The assessment order for 1994-95 recorded that the sales were conducted as first sales within the State. The Court concluded that such transactions could not be treated as sales in the course of export.

Precedents:
The Court considered several precedents, including:
- Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Co. of India Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [1960] 11 STC 764 (SC): It was held that sales to aircraft proceeding abroad for consumption did not constitute export as there was no destination outside India.
- Madras Marine Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1984] 56 STC 154 (AP): Sales to foreign vessels were held to be within the State and not in the course of export.
- Madras Marine and Co. v. State of Madras [1986] 63 STC 169 (SC): The Supreme Court held that sales from bonded warehouses to foreign-going ships within the State were taxable under the State Act.

Conclusion:
The Court concluded that the petitioner failed to show that the sales had a destination outside India. The sales were made to customers in Visakhapatnam, and the goods were taken to the high seas for consumption during fishing operations. Therefore, the sales did not amount to exports.

Judgment:
The tax revision cases were dismissed, and the petitioner's contentions were rejected. The sales were held to be taxable under the APGST and CST Acts.

Final Order:
Petition dismissed. No costs.

← Previous Next →