9911796707
TMI Blog1958 (2) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elp because, as we have already pointed out, this Court has decided that only the sale that occasions the export is exempt and that the sale to the exporter that preceded it is not, even if it was made "with a view to", or "for the purpose of", export - we are in favour of the appellant on the first point - Case remanded. - Civil Appeal No. 110, 112 of 1954, Civil Appeal No. 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73 of 1957 W.P. No. 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 of 1954, - - - Dated:- 11-2-1958 - DAS S.R. J. AND VENKATARAMA AIYAR T.L. AND DAS S.K. AND SARKAR A.K. AND VIVIAN BOSE JJ. C.K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, (H.J. Umrigar and T.M. Sen, Advocates, with him), for the appellants. V.L. Narasimhamoorty, Advocate, and J.B. Dadachanji, S.N. Andley and Rameshwar Nath, Advocater of Rajinder Narain Co., for the respondents. -------------------------------------------------- The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BOSE, J.- This judgment will govern Civil Appeals Nos. 66 to 73 of 1957. They arise out of a certificate granted by the High Court of Mysore against a judgment of that Court delivered on 29th September, 1955. The appellant is the State of Myso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dealt with them and the Mills dealt with the exporters. The procedure for export was as follows. During the period in dispute, only duly licensed exporters were allowed to export. We presume that in the few cases in which the Mills exported direct they had a licence to do so. But we are not concerned with those sales and will limit ourselves to the other kind made through duly licensed ex- porters whom we shall refer to as exporters. In those cases, the first step was for these exporters to obtain a firm offer from a buyer over- seas specifying the quality and quantity of cloth or yarn required by the buyer. The second step was for the exporter to produce this offer before the Export Controller and obtain a provisional export licence from him in respect of the goods ordered. The third step was for the exporter to enquire from the Mills whether they could sell, or manufacture, within a reasonable time, goods of the quality and quantity required by the overseas buyer. If the Mills said "yes", the fourth step was for the exporter to enter into a firm contract with the foreign purchaser and the fifth step was for the exporter to enter into a con- tract with the Mills for the sale o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The learned counsel for the respondents referred to certain obser- vations in Kailash Nath v. State of U.P. [1957] 8 S.T.C. 358; A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 790., but that case is not in point because the Court was construing a certain notification which used the words "with a view to export" and it exempted sales made for that purpose from taxation. The language of Article 286(1)(b) is different and The State of Madras v. Guruviah Naidu [1955] 6 S.T.C. 717, at 721; A.I.R. 1956 S.C. 158 at 161., points out that sales made "for the purpose of export" are not protected unless they themselves "occasion the export." It was argued that the present case is distinguishable from the previous decisions because here Government has itself prescribed the course of the export by (1) prohibiting all export from the country save by or through licensed exporters and (2) directing that all goods for export are to be specially packed and specially marked "for export only." It was said that Government has accepted the ratio of the dissenting judgment in The State of Travancore-Cochin v. Shanmugha Vilas Cashew-Nut Factory [1954] S.C.R. 53 at 96; 4 S.T.C. 205. and has placed the starting point of the strea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - selves had no licence to export. But however that may be, they dropped that case before the Sales Tax Commissioner, if indeed they had ever set it up, and said: "3. (2) That the sales by the petitioner company in question were no doubt sales to export licence-holders in India and not to overseas buyers direct. (3) That under the regulations in force the company could not themselves export the goods out of India, and they were obliged to follow the above procedure as under the Cotton Textile (Export Control) Order, it is obligatory to export the goods to overseas markets only through the export licence holders." The Sales Tax Commissioner held that- "There is no doubt that the facts are as stated by the company at ..........3(2) and 3(3) above." This is clearly not a case of agency because a principal does not sell to his agent and even if this was the only way in which an export could be effected, that would not make the exporter the agent of the seller because, by the very act of purchase, the exporter became a principal and bought as such. Quite apart from that, there is nothing to indicate that the exporters were the respondents' agents or that they ever acted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
