2016 (8) TMI 300 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Proof of export - penultimate sale production of complete H-forms purchase of paddy whether the purchase of paddy was made after and for the purpose of complying with the export order or not - assessment under CST Act,1956 rebate of tax - Held that - A perusal of the contents of Form H would show that the sale made by the dealer has to be after the agreement or order and it has to be for the purposes of complying with the terms thereof. The form would further reveal that in case the goods are re-imported the information with regard to the same has to be furnished to the sales tax authorities within a month from the date of the import. This form was furnished by the dealer which has been accepted revision application accepted. Regarding the issue of rebate - Held that - The sale has been made to a export house and form H issued under Rule 12(1) read with Section 5 of the CST Act has been placed on record. Rebate granted. Appeal allowed decided in favor of assesse.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Interpretation of Section 5(2)(a)(vi) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948
- Entitlement to rebate on purchase of paddy for export purposes
- Validity of Tribunal's direction to produce 'H' forms and prove purpose of purchase for export

Interpretation of Section 5(2)(a)(vi) of the Act:
The case involved a dealer seeking rebate on tax paid for purchasing paddy intended for export. The State argued that Section 29 of the Act overrides any such rebate unless the purchase was for complying with an export order. The appellant contended that the Act did not impose any conditions on export sales. The court referred to a Supreme Court judgment and held that the goods sold for export outside India were exempt from tax under Section 5(2)(a)(vi) of the Act without any additional requirements.

Entitlement to rebate on purchase of paddy for export purposes:
The appellant had initially been denied rebate on tax paid for purchasing paddy intended for export. The first appellate authority granted the rebate, but the Tribunal later set aside this decision. The appellant argued that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by adding conditions to the rebate eligibility. The court, following precedent, held that the appellant was entitled to the rebate under Section 5(2)(a)(vi) of the Act, maintaining consistency with previous judgments.

Validity of Tribunal's direction to produce 'H' forms and prove purpose of purchase for export:
The Tribunal directed the appellant to produce 'H' forms and prove that the paddy purchases were made for export purposes. The State supported this direction, citing a Supreme Court judgment regarding the necessity of prior export orders for rebate eligibility. However, the court found that the Tribunal's direction was not supported by the Act's provisions and was unnecessary. The court accepted the appeals, setting aside the Tribunal's directions on proving the purpose of purchase for export.

This judgment clarifies the entitlement to rebate on purchases made for export under Section 5(2)(a)(vi) of the Act, emphasizing that no additional conditions beyond those specified in the Act are required for such rebates. The court upheld the appellant's right to the rebate and rejected the Tribunal's imposition of additional requirements, ensuring consistency with previous decisions on similar matters.