SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(Mad) 341

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.S.Venkatachalamoorthy and P.K.Misra, JJ.
M/s.State Trading Corporation of India Limited, Chennai
Versus
The Commercial Tax Officer, Chennai and another
W.P.Nos.7164 and 7165 of 2001
Decided On : 04 March 2004

Advocates:
K.Mani, for M/s.Anitha Sumanth, for Petitioner.
T.Ayyasamy, Special Government Pleader, for Respondent.

It cannot be said that sale took place in course of import.

Headnote:Central Sales Tax Act, 1956-Section 5(2) and Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959-Section 16-Claim for exemption for sale in course of import-After the ship reached the port transfer of title of goods made-Exemption from payment of tax cannot be granted.3

A.S.Venkatachalamoorthy, J.: The petitioner is same in both the writ petitions, who seeks for issuance of writ of certiorari to call for the records of the second respondent in T.C.R.Nos.10 of 2000 and 1886 of 1997 dated 6th September, 2000 and quash the same. Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same, the above writ petitions can be disposed of by this common order.

2. Briefly it is the case of the petitioner that it is a Public Sector Undertaking and registered under the Companies Act and a canalising Agency, appointed by the Government of India for the import of newsprint required by the News Paper Publishers. The Consumers of the newsprint apply to the Registrar of Newspapers of India, under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting for allocation of newsprint, specifying their requirements and the Registrar makes allocations of newsprint. On the basis of that the petitioner, who has a bulk licence, places the order for import of Russian newsprint on behalf of those consumers. The import is made strictly in accordance with the specification furnished by the Newspaper to the Registrar of Newspapers, who in turn makes the allocation, pursuant to which orders are placed on the foreign supplier for the import of newsprint. According to the petitioner, though the newsprint is imported against the bulk licence issued to the petitioner covering a large number of imports made on behalf of various newspapers, the imports are effected for and on bahelf of various newspapers and clearance is arranged under sub-licence and the letter of authority. Though the foreign invoices and the bill of lading stood in the name of the petitioner, the name of Indian Express was mentioned indicating the specifications. In fact, the customs duty and other charges were paid only by the Customer viz., the Indian Express and the consignment was cleared by the Indian Express. According to the petitioner, the transaction is a sale in the course of import and consequently not liable to tax. The petitioner also contended that soon after the receipt of the documents, the documents were transferred to Indian express even while the goods were on the highseas enabling Indian Express to clear the goods through Customs.

3. The stand of the respondents as can be culled out from the materials available on record is that the sales were not sales on the high seas and not eligible for exemption under Sec.5(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The ship arrived on 11.6.1974 for the year 1974-75 and the goods were handed over to the petitioner after receipt of cash payment on 19.7.1974. For the year 1975-76, the ship arrived on 6.4.1975 and the documents were handed over on 22.4.1975 and the goods were cleared by the buyer on 22.4.1995. The records available would clearly show that the sales were effected after the arrival of the ship, i.e., after the ship crossed the customs barrier for both the years 1974-75 and 1975-76 and the assessing authority rightly treated the sales as local sales after the import of the goods and hence the claim of exemption under Sec.5(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 was not available to them.

4. The assessing authority after examining the matter in detail, rejected the petitioner’s contention that the sale is an import and subjected the transaction to tax as local sales within the State of Tamilnadu. The petitioner challenged the assessments in appeal contending that reopening of the assessment under Sec.16 of the Tamilnadu General Sales Tax Act treating them as local sales is not correct. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner so also the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal confirmed the assessment for both the years and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner filed revision before the second respondent herein. The second respondent after duly considering the entire matter held that the documents were transferred after crossing of the territorial water and there was no link between the actua












Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top