9911796707
TMI Blog1963 (3) TMI 83X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the 1st of April, 1959, to the 3oth of June, 1959, the petitioner was assessed to sales tax by the Superintendent of Sales Tax, Darbhanga Circle, on the 22nd February, 1960. The petitioner claimed before the Superintendent of Sales Tax that the sale of goods made to customers in Nepal to the extent of ₹ 50,015.55 nP. should be exempted from assessment of sales tax, but the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the Superintendent of Sales Tax. The relevant portion of the order of the Superintendent of Sales Tax reads as follows:- "The dealer claimed that the despatches to the extent of ₹ 50,015.55 nP. made to Nepal parties should be allowed in full. It was found that the credit memos were prepared in the name of the Nepa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8377; 6,004.5-2 nP. only." 2. The petitioner has moved the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution for setting aside the order of the Superintendent of Sales Tax on this point and for making a fresh assessment in accordance with law. 3. On behalf of the petitioner the argument is put forward that the Superintendent of Sales Tax had no legal authority to impose tax on the transaction of sale between the assessee and his customers in Nepal to the extent of ₹ 50,015/-and odd because of the constitutional bar imposed under Article 286(1)(b) of the Constitution, which is to the following effect: - "No law of a State shall impose, or authorise the imposition of a tax on the sale or purchase of goods where such sale or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nstrued as limited in its operation only to sales and purchases effected during the transit of the goods. It was held in that case by all the learned Judges, in a unanimous judgment, that export sales of 'commodities to foreign buyers on c. i. f, or f. o. b. terms would be exempt from sales tax under Article 286(1)(b) of the Constitution of India. At page 438 (of STC) : (at pp. 367-368 of AIR) of the report Patanjali Sastri, C. J., has observed as follows in the course of his judgment:- "We are clearly of opinion 'that the sales here in question, which occasioned the export in each case, fall within the scope of the exemption under Article 286(1)(b). Such sales must of necessity be put through by transporting the goods by rai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... intendent of Sales Tax in the assessment order in the first place that credit memos were prepared by the assessee in the name of the Nepal parties. It has also been found that the custom duty was not paid by the petitioner and transport charges were also not paid by the petitioner, though the custom receipts show that the custom duty was paid by the petitioner. It has also been found by the Superintendent of Sales Tax that "the delivery of the goods to the purchaser or his representative is finalised in India without any conclusive evidence to establish that the, dealer continued to be the owner of the goods up to and beyond the time when the goods entered into the export or until after the goods cross the customs barrier to make the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is supported by the decision of the Supreme Court in 1952 3 STC 434 pat : (AIR 1952 SC 366), to which we have already made reference. In that case also there was delivery of the goods to foreign buyers on c. i. f. or f. o. b. contracts, and even so it was held by the Supreme Court that the case fell within the exemption granted by Article 286(1)(b) of the Constitution. It was also argued by the learned Government Pleader that in the Supreme Court case 1952 3 STC 434 pat : AIR 1952 SC 366, the delivery of the goods was made by the assessee to a common carrier for transport out of the country by land or sea. It was, therefore, submitted by the learned Government Pleader that unless there was delivery of the goods by the assessee to a common ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
