9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 976 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxPenultimate sale - whether the purchased goods and the exported goods are one and the same for the purpose of claiming penultimate sale exemption under Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act? - Held that - a constitution Bench of the Apex Court, in the case of State of Karnataka Versus Azad Coach Builders Pvt. Ltd. and another 2010 (9) TMI 879 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA has held that When the transaction between the assessee and the exporter and the transaction between the exporter and foreign buyer are inextricably connected with each other, in our view, the same goods theory has no application, assessee is entitled to exemption under section 5(3) of the CST Act - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of substantial questions of law regarding the purchase of raw skins pursuant to export orders. 2. Examination of the correctness of the Appellate Tribunal's conclusions and decisions. 3. Consideration of relevant legal precedents and circulars in determining tax liability. 4. Comparison with previous judgments and decisions by different benches of the court. 5. Application of the State Sales Tax exemption under Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act to exported goods. Issue 1: The primary issue in this case revolves around the interpretation of substantial questions of law related to the purchase of raw skins pursuant to export orders. The court considered whether the factual findings and conclusions of the Appellate Tribunal were contrary to the actual circumstances of the case. The petitioner argued that the raw skins were purchased in accordance with export orders, which had not been disputed earlier in the proceedings. Issue 2: The judgment also delves into the correctness of the Appellate Tribunal's decisions. It questions whether the Tribunal erred in reaching conclusions without providing the petitioner an opportunity to prove that the raw skins were purchased as per export orders. Additionally, the court examined whether the Tribunal's decision ignored relevant legal principles and precedents, such as the decision in the KAK Anwar case and subsequent judgments allowing exemptions for raw skins pursuant to export orders. Issue 3: A significant aspect of the judgment involves the consideration of various legal precedents and circulars to determine the tax liability in the case. The court analyzed the circular issued by the Ministry of Industries and Commerce, emphasizing that goods like hides and skins encompass activities from the raw stage to finishing. This analysis aimed to establish a comprehensive understanding of the legal framework governing the taxation of such goods. Issue 4: The judgment compared the present case with previous judgments by different benches of the court. It highlighted a Division Bench's decision in a similar case, where the court allowed the Tax Case Revision based on a Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court. This comparison underscored the consistency in legal interpretation across different cases and the relevance of precedent in shaping decisions. Issue 5: Lastly, the application of the State Sales Tax exemption under Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act to exported goods was a crucial point of consideration. The court examined whether the purchased raw hides and skins, when exported as dressed hides and skins, qualified for tax exemption under the relevant provisions. By referencing the Apex Court's decision in the State of Karnataka Vs. Azad Coach Builders case, the court concluded that an in-severable link between local purchase and export justified the exemption, leading to a favorable outcome for the petitioner. In conclusion, the judgment thoroughly analyzed the various legal issues surrounding the taxation of raw skins purchased for export orders, considering factual findings, legal principles, precedents, and relevant statutes to arrive at a decision in favor of the petitioner.
|
