9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (3) TMI 220X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... K. Srinivasan for R. Srinivasaraghavan, for the appellant. The judgment of the Court was delivered by BALASUBRAHMANYAN, J. -This is a sales tax appeal under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The assessee in this case is M.M.T.C. (the Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation of India Ltd.). Its dealings in the year 1968-69 revealed a turnover in tin plates and steel plates imported from Japan. They are declared goods subject to single point sales tax at the point of first sales in this State. The Board of Revenue, Madras, passed an order of suo motu revision against the M.M.T.C. By that order, they restored an assessment made by the assessing authority on the M.M.T.C. of a turnover amounting in all to Rs. 26,59,787. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wing the names of the allottees, their specifications of goods, quantities required, and also the distinguishing marks to be used in the shipments. The terms and conditions of the orders placed by the M.M.T.C. with the Japanese firm were accepted and confirmed by the allottees. The Japanese firm thereafter shipped the goods for delivery at Madras Port. The shipping documents were made out in the name of the M.M.T.C. as consignee. On payment, of the entire value of the goods by the respective allottees, the M.M.T.C. effected delivery to them. This was done in two different ways. In some cases the M.M.T.C. advised their clearing agents to deliver the consignments to the allottees ex wharf at the Madras Port. In some other cases, the M.M.T.C. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts were marked to each one of them distinctly and separately under separate shipping documents. The M.M.T.C. might have placed the orders with the Japanese firm. The bills of lading might have been made out in the name of the M.M.T.C. as the consignee. But these aspects of the transactions are yet consistent with the position that the allottees alone were the real importers, and the M.M.T.C. only played the part, may be a considerable part, of an agent for import. The imports were but a single transaction. Only the Board, from their peculiar focus, saw them double. Even on the Board's assumption that the M.M.T.C. were the importer of the goods from Japan, there is no basis for the further assumption that the M.M.T.C. had effected sales o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lottees. We must, therefore, reject the Board's finding to that effect as a mere figment of the imagination. It is necessary to emphasise that the Board's order fails even at the very first stage of the inquiry. The materials before the Board do not make out any sales at all by the M.M.T.C. to the allottees. We accordingly feel it would be a waste of time to proceed to examine whether they are first sales in this State. Equally superfluous is the search for statutory exemptions as if some kind of exemption or other would be the only means of the M.M.T.C. obtaining immunity from taxation of the disputed turnover of Rs. 26,59,787. For instance, one of the contentions seriously urged before for the M.M.T.C. related to a part of the disputed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was easy to prove by the sales tax assessees and others. Nothing like the test laid down by this provision existed in the statute book at the material time when the transactions in this case had occurred. Mr. Srinivasan suggested that this provision, although newly enacted, must be applied even to prior transactions. According to him, the provision was merely clarificatory, in nature, of the preexisting law. We do not agree. We hold that section 2(ab) breaks new ground, and there is nothing to show that it was retrospective in operation. We accord- ingly reject all the contentions based on this provision. This, however, does not affect our determination that the Board misdirected themselves in holding that the M.M.T.C. had effected sales ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the grounds we have earlier stated. We do not see any analogy whatever, even an inverse analogy, between the two cases. In the Supreme Court case, the M.M.T.C. were found to be the purchaser of the goods which thereafter, on their own account, they proceeded to export. In the present case the facts do not show that the M.M.T.C. imported the goods from Japan on their own account. Much less is their evidence of a sale, or resale, by the M.M.T.C. of these goods, after import, to the allottees. The Board's finding to the contrary is therefore, insupportable both on facts and on principle. We accordingly allow this appeal and set aside the Board's order. The M.M.T.C. will have their costs from the State. Counsel's fee Rs. 250. - - T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
