9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (7) TMI 346X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, by his order dated 15th April, 1974, determined the total and taxable turnover at Rs. 1,38,08,678.18 and Rs.13,20,879.24, respectively. In passing such an assessment order, he rejected the assessee's claim for exemption in respect of Rs. 4,04,420 on the ground that they represent export sales. The assessee took the matter in appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner contending that the denial of benefit of exemption of Rs. 4,04,420 by the assessing authority was erroneous. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, however, after going through the nature of the transactions particularly with reference to the terms of the agency agreement between the assessee and one Kothandaraman Co., held that the assessee has exported the goods t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to receive only a commission of 5 per cent on the sales effected by it on behalf of the assessee. The same agency agreement also provides under clause 8 that the agent should pay 90 per cent of the estimated value of the goods as advance to the assessee after the despatch of the goods and the balance of 10 per cent will be payable to the assessee when realised from the foreign customer by the agent. The agency agreement also provides other restrictions on the agent. Thus, the substance of the contract between the assessee and Kothandaraman Co. is that the latter has to export the goods on behalf of the assessee as its agent and they are entitled to a commission of 5 per cent on the sales, for the work done by them. Merely because the ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the foreign buyer and the local seller, who has exported the goods through the medium of an agent and the agent has transacted with the foreign buyer in his own name, there should be deemed to be two sales, one from the assessee to the agent and the other from the agent to the foreign buyer. This contention was specifically considered and rejected by a Division Bench of this Court in the said decision. The Bench has referred to, with approval, the three earlier decisions of this Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. A. Shafeeq Ahmed [1979] 44 STC 263 (Appendix). Hajee Abdul Khalique Sahib Co. v. State of Tamil Nadu [1979] 44 STC 261 and Akhtar Co. v. State of Tamil Nadu [1981] 47 STC 62, in all of which, a common principle had been laid down ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
