9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (10) TMI 136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessing officer declined to accept this contention relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Coffee Board, Bangalore v. Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Madras[1970] 25 S.T.C. 528 (S.C.)., which itself was followed in Mod. Serajuddin v. State of Orissa[1975] 36 S.T.C. 136 (S.C.). However, on appeal preferred by the appellants, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (C.T.) III, Madras, held that the local exporting houses, who exported tanned skins, did so only on behalf of the appellants and that, therefore, the respective turnovers were eligible for exemption. It is these orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that were sought to be revised suo motu by the Board of Revenue after issuing notice to the appellants. The appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cal exporting houses were acting as the agents of somebody else and that they were not dealing with their own goods by way of selling them to the foreign buyers. We are of the opinion that, on this admission, the sales in question must be held to be liable to sales tax, because it must be deemed that there was a local sale by the appellants to the exporting houses in order to enable the exporting houses to effect a sale in their own right in favour of the foreign buyers. In fact, that is the view taken by a Bench of this Court, to which one of us was a party, in its order dated 16th February, 1976, in State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Madras Division, Madras-1 v. A. Shafeeq Ahmed and Co. (Tax Cases Nos. 458 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uary, 1976, is printed below: ] THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU v. A. SHAFEEQ AHMED AND CO. The judgment of the Court was delivered by RAMASWAMI, J.-Though the assessees in these two tax revision cases are different, the point involved is the same. In respect of the disputed turnover, the assessees claimed that the turnover related to sales in the course of export. The assessees contended that the turnover related to sales effected through local exporting agents and that, in law, there was no sale to the local agent and that the assessees themselves should be deemed to be the exporters. Though the assessing officer rejected this contention, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner pointed out that the transaction could be either a sale to a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, to analyse each transaction and come to a conclusion whether the export sale was by the assessees or by the agent in his own right. The Tribunal did not also have the benefit of the decision of the Supreme Court in Mod. Serajuddin v. State of Orissa[1975] 36 S.T.C. 136 (S.C.)., which came much later than its order. The Tribunal will now dispose of the cases on merits and in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Mod. Serajuddin v. State of Orissa[1975] 36 S.T.C. 136 (S.C.). The tax revision cases are accordingly allowed and the order of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh disposal in the light of the observations made above. But there will be no order as to costs. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
