SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.N. Bhagwati, CJI., V. KHALID, G.L. OZA, JJ.
M/s. Sterling Foods, Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka, another, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 220 (NT) of 1986
Decided on 21-7-1986.
Advocates appeared
Mr. C. K. Viswanath Iyer, Sr. Advocate, Mr. K. M. K. Nair, S. T. Desai, Advocates with him, for Appellant; Mr. B. R. L. Iyengar, Sr. Advocate, Mr. M. Veerappa, Advocate with him, for Respondents.
Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Karnataka Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1978 – Section 9 - Partnership firm - Commodity for purpose - Falls for determination - Appellants are partnership firm carrying on business as dealers in shrimps, prawns and lobsters and other sea food products. The appellants are registered as a dealer both under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act 1957 and Central Sales Tax Act 1956. The appellants in course of their business purchase shrimps, prawns and lobsters locally for the purpose of complying with orders for export and they cut the heads and tails of the shrimps, prawns and lobsters purchased by them, peel, devein and clean them and after freezing and packing them in cartons, they export them to foreign buyers outside India under prior contracts of sale. The appellants filed their statement of monthly turn-over for month before Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Mangalore and in this statement of monthly turn-over, they claimed total exemption from tax in respect of the purchase turn-over of shrimps, prawns and lobsters on the ground that the same had been purchased in the course of export – Held, present case, it was not disputed on behalf of Revenue that the purchases of raw shrimps, prawns and lobsters were made by the appellants for the purpose of fulfilling existing contracts for export and after making such purchases the appellants subjected raw shrimps, prawns and lobsters purchased by them to the process of cutting of heads and tails, peeling, deveining, cleaning and freezing and exported such processed and frozen shrimps, prawns and lobsters in fulfilment of the contracts for export - Only argument raised on behalf of Revenue was that the goods which were exported were not the same as the goods purchased by appellants because raw shrimps, prawns and lobsters after processing ceased to be the same commodity and became a new distinct commodity. But, for reasons which Court have already discussed, argument cannot be sustained - Shrimps, prawns and lobsters purchased by appellants did not lose their original character and identity when they were subjected to processing for the purpose of export. So far as commercial parlance or popular usage is concerned, they remained the same goods and hence purchases of raw shrimps, prawns and lobsters by appellants must be held to be purchases in the course of export and hence exempt from liability to tax under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Appeal is allowed
JUDGMENT
BHAGWATI, C.J.I. :— The short question that arises for determination in this appeal by certificate is whether shrimps, prawns and lobsters subjected to processing like cutting of heads and tails, peeling, deveining, cleaning and freezing cease to be the same commodity and become a different commodity for the purpose of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Can they still go under the description of shrimps, prawns and lobsters or in other words, when we use the words shrimps, prawns and lobsters do they mean only raw shrimps, prawns and lobsters as caught from the sea or do they also include processed and frozen shrimps, prawns and lobsters? This question which falls for determination in the present appeal arises out of the following facts.
2. The appellants are a partnership firm carrying on business as dealers in shrimps, prawns and lobsters and other sea food products. The appellants are registered as a dealer both under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act 1957 and the Central Sales Tax Act 1956. The appellants in the course of their business purchase shrimps, prawns and lobsters locally for the purpose of complying with orders for export and they cut the heads and tails of the shrimps, prawns and lobsters purchased by them, peel, devein and clean them and after freezing and packing them in cartons, they export them to foreign buyers outside India under prior contracts of sale. The appellants filed their statement of monthly turn-over for the month of April 1982 before the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Mangalore and in this statement of monthly turn-over, they claimed total exemption from tax in respect of the purchase turn-over of shrimps, prawns and lobsters on the ground that the same had been purchased in the course of export. The appellants relied on sub-sec. (3) of S. 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act 1956 which reads as follows :
"Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1) the last sale or purchase of any goods preceding the sale or purchase occasioning the export of those goods out of the territory of India shall also be deemed to be in the course of such export, if such last sale or purchase took place after, and was for the purpose of complying with, the agreement or order for or in relation to such export."
The appellants contended that since the purchases of shrimps, prawns and lobsters had been made by them for the purpose of complying with the orders for export, such purchases of shrimps, prawns and lobsters must be deemed to be in the course of export and they were accordingly not taxable under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act 1957. This contention of the appellants was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and on 30th July 1982 an order was made by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes for the month of April 1982 under S. 12B(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act 1957 assessing the appellants to purchase-tax and other incidental taxes in respect of the purchases of shrimps, prawns and lobsters made by them during the said period. The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes also passed another order dt. 3rd August 1982 assessing the appellants to purchase-tax and other incidental taxes in respect of the purchases of shrimps, prawns and lobsters made by them during the month of May, 1982. These two orders made by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes were followed by issue of notices of demand for Rs. 52,610.71 and Rs. 44,237.88 respectively against the appellants. The appellants thereupon filed a writ petition in the High Court of Karnataka challenging the assessment orders and the notices of demand issued against them and sought appropriate direction, order or writ restraining the respondents from imposing or collecting purchase-tax on purchase turn-over of shrimps, prawns and lobsters under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act 1957. The writ petition was dismissed by the High Court, but having regard to the importance of the question involved, a certificate under Art. 1
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.