9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (9) TMI 319X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess at Saligrama in K.R. Nagar Taluk, Mysore District. He filed returns of his turnover for the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81 disclosing purchase turnover at Rs. 6,36,572.25 and sales turnover at Rs. 7,38,117.03. The sale was further classified as sales of hides and skins to local registered dealers against form No. 52 at Rs. 2,66,104.96, interState sales of hides and skins covered by C forms at Rs. 48,089.07 and export sales supported by H forms at Rs. 4,23,923; totally Rs. 7,38,117.03. For the year 1980-81, he showed similarly Rs. 3,48,914.50 as sales outside the State for export supported by H forms. In the first instance, the exemption claimed in respect of turnover on H forms came to be granted by the assessing authority. The ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cts and in the circumstances of the case of the appellant, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the purchases are not exempted under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957? 3.. The last question does not fall for consideration, on the facts of the case. Therefore, we may deal with the second of the questions formulated above which covers the first question also. 4.. The undisputed facts are: The assessee purchased hides and skins from local dealers in order to meet an order placed on him by an exporter in Tamil Nadu, who had his place of business at Ambur. In order to evidence that he sold the goods outside the State to an exporter, certain documents were presented which are even made as annexures to the petitions. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... port having regard to sub-section (3) of section 5 of the Act. What had happened in the case before the Supreme Court was that a hides and skins merchant had filed his claim for exemption in a particular form prescribed under the U.P. Sales Tax Rules, which was not the appropriate form for claiming such exemption. To demonstrate that it was the last sale in favour of the exporter preceding the act of exporting the goods outside the country, the Supreme Court was of the view that it was not the form that was important, but the facts of the case. As long as it was established that it was the last sale or purchase in the course of export or deemed to be in the course of export in terms of sub-section (3) of section 5 of the Act, the benefit of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
