Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1976 (12) TMI 165

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sai, Senior Advocate (in C.A. No. 1221 of 1974), B.M. Bagaria and D.P. Mukherjee, Advocates, for the appellants. P.P. Rao, Senior Advocate, ( T.V.S.N. Chari, Advocate, with him), for the respondent. -------------------------------------------------- The judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY, C.J. -These six appeals are by special leave from the judgment dated 26th February, 1974, of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The principal question in these appeals is whether the appellants are the last purchasers of manganese ore within the State of Andhra Pradesh. The appellants contended before the sales tax authorities that their sales of manganese ore to the Mines and Minerals Trading Corporation, in short called the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... .C. contracts with the foreign buyers were held not to be integrated activities in the course of export. The crucial words in section 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, are that a sale or purchase of goods shall be deemed to take place out of the territory of India only if the sale or purchase either occasions such export or is effected by a transfer of documents of title to the goods after the goods have crossed the customs frontiers of India. This Court found that the contracts between the manganese merchants and the S.T.C. on the one hand and the contracts between the S.T.C. and their foreign buyers on the other were two separate and independent contracts of sale. The S.T.C. entered into direct contract with their foreign buyers. Th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n in Serajuddin's case [1975] 36 S.T.C. 136 (S.C.); [1975] Supp. S.C.R. 169., applied to one of the six contracts but he disputed the application of the ruling in Serajuddin's case [1975] 36 S.T.C. 136 (S.C.); [1975] Supp. S.C.R. 169. to the other five contracts. The reasons given by the counsel for the State are these: Only one contract was referred to in the High Court. The case of the appellants has all along been that the sales tax appellate authorities considered only one contract. The High Court also considered only one contract. In the special leave petition the appellants assailed the assumption made by the High Court to the effect that all contracts between the appellants and the M.M.T.C. were similar. Counsel for the State put .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the corporations to the merchants to place the goods on board the ship are pursuant to the contracts of sale between the merchants and the corporation. These directions are not in the course of export, because the export sale is an independent one between the corporations and their foreign buyers. The taking of the goods from the merchants' place to the ship is completely separate from the transit pursuant to the export sale: see Serajuddin's case [1975] 36 S.T.C. 136 (S.C.); [1975] Supp. S.C.R. 169. In string contracts or chain contracts delivery is made by the original seller and eo instanti it is delivered in implement under each separate contract in the chain. In chain or string contracts starting between the mills or mines or facto .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n order to fulfil f.o.b. contract with a foreign buyer. This Court in Serajuddin's case [1975] 36 S.T.C. 136 at 149-150 (S.C.); [1975] Supp. S.C.R. 169 at 184-185. has laid down that the mere mention of f.o.b. price or f.o.b. delivery in a contract between a merchant and the S.T.C. which exports the goods under a separate contract with the foreign buyer to the latter will not make the two contracts either integrated or the contract between the merchant and the S.T.C. an f.o.b. contract. There cannot be two last purchasers in the sale of the same goods within the same State. Similarly, there cannot be two exporters in respect of the same goods. After the decision of the Constitution Bench in Serajuddin's case [1975] 36 S.T.C. 136 at 149- .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates