9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (9) TMI 1089X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uts and the balance, turnover of gunnies. The petitioner disputed the assessment of the entire turnover and preferred an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Kakinada. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Kakinada, by his order No. 427/91-82 dated June 30, 1982 allowed the appeal filed by the petitionerassessee and ordered exemption of the entire turnover. Thereafterwards, the Joint Commissioner (Legal) revised the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner relating to turnover of Rs. 35,37,370 on cashew-nuts and passed orders confirming the assessment to tax on a turnover of Rs. 7,23,639 and permitted exemption on the remaining turnover by his order dated September 30, 1986. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order prefer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion that was answered in the negative in Shanmugha Vilas case [1953] 4 STC 205 (SC); [1954] SCR 53. Therefore, no distinction can be drawn between the cases now under appeal and the decision of this Court in Shanmugha Vilas case [1953] 4 STC 205; [1954] SCR 53 on the plea that the scope of sub-section (3) of section 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act was wider than article 286 of the Constitution. It is true that sub-section (3) by a legal fiction has widened the scope of export sale, but the basic concept remains the same. In order to get immunity from taxation by the State Legislature, the goods exported must be the same goods which were purchased. The question raised in these appeals is whether the purchase of raw goods made by the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remand report sent by the High Court have not been shown to be contrary to the facts found in the case of the appellants." 3.. In Consolidated Coffee Ltd. v. Coffee Board, Bangalore [1980] 46 STC 164, the Supreme Court laid down the conditions precedent for applying section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act. They are: 1.. There must have been a pre-existing agreement or order to sell specific goods to a foreign buyer; 2.. The last purchase or sale referred to in section 3 must have taken place after the said agreement or order with the foreign buyers was entered into; 3.. The sale or purchase must have been for the purpose of complying with such pre-existing agreement or order. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to claim e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner-firm. No acceptable substantive evidence was placed before the Commissioner to establish that the entire purchases made at Rajahmundry between April 24, 1979 and July 16, 1979 were exported in pursuance of pre-existing contracts. The findings recorded by the Commissioner are essentially on questions of facts. No material is placed before us to satisfy ourselves that the factual findings recorded by the Commissioner are perverse or based on no evidence. Further, in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vijayalaxmi Cashew Company v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer [1996] 100 STC 571 the judgment of this Court in Singh Trading Company case [1979] 44 STC 1 is no longer good law. 5.. The special appeal is devoid of an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
