V. K. SINGHAL, J.

( 1 ) BOTH these petitions are disposed of by this common judgment since the question involved is common.

( 2 ) IN S. T. R. P. No. 4 of 1997 following questions are raised :

(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding the transactions in question as one of inter-State sale when the completed bus are directly exported by the petitioner to Sri Lanka party without giving delivery of the same to ashok Leyland ?

(2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding the disputed transaction as one of inter-State sale when there is no movement of goods from one State to another pursuant to a contract of sale ?

(3) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in subjecting the petitioner (sic) when the petitioner has acted as an agent of Ashok Leyland and has effected direct export sales without invoking the provisions of the Act ?

(4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Tribunal is valid and sustainable in law ?

( 3 ) THE assessee is a private limited company and is a manufacturer and seller of bus bodies. The bus bodies are mounted on the chassis supplied by the customers according to their specifications. When the foreign buyers place orders on the petitioner's customers for "bus body" and "chassis" the petitioner's customers in turn place order on the petitioner for bus bodies and supply chassis on which the bus bodies are mounted. The petitioner's customers then export the "bus bodies" and "chassis" to their foreign customers.

( 4 ) AT the time of assessment, it was found by the assessing authority that the customers have the export order for buses and not its bodies and accordingly buses had been exported. The claim of the petitioner for exemption on the penultimate sale of bus bodies in the course of exports which was duly supported by form H was rejected treating these transactions as inter-State sales. According to the assessing authority "bus body" and "chassis" were two different commodities and the exemption could not be allowed. The order of the assessing authority was upheld by the first appellate authority considering that the goods exported were different from the goods purchased by the customer. The petitioner was however permitted to file C forms to be obtained from the customers. When the matter was taken up before the Tribunal it was submitted that bus bodies manufactured by the petitioner and mounted on the chassis supplied by the customer could be dismantled by the customer by removing few nuts and bolts. It was also submitted that foreign buyers specifically mentioned separately the type of "bus bodies" and "chassis" required to be exported. The identity of the bus body is not lost after mounting over the chassis and therefore the conditions required under Section 5 (3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 stands fulfilled. The Tribunal was of the view that chassis and bus bodies are different commodities in the Schedule and the intention of the foreign buyer was to purchase a complete bus. The purchase was of bus bodies fitted on chassis but the export was of the bus and therefore the order of the assessing authority was upheld.

( 5 ) IN S. T. R. P. No. 5 of 1998, initially the claim of the assessee was allowed when the transactions were considered as covered by Section 5 (3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Revisional powers under Section 21 read with Section 9 (2) of the Central Sales Tax Act were exercised. Tribunal took the view that "bus bodies" and "complete bus" are different and separate specified goods. Bodies built on motor chassis are specified in serial number 14 (iii) and motor vehicles are specified in serial number 13 of Part M of the Second Schedule of the Karnataka sales Tax Act, 1957. The delivery of the "complete bus" was given by the assessee at sea port and therefore the transactions were

Click Here to Read the rest of this document