AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.—The assessee sold chillies ex-his godown in Ariyalur in the State of Tamil Nadu to his buyers who were at Bombay
and who had entered into a contract with the assessee for the purpose of fulfilling a contract for exporting the same to Odessa (USSR) from the
Cochin Port. Gunny bags were delivered by the buyer to the assessee for packing the chillies. The container also was supplied by the buyer.
Goods were moved in that container from Ariyalur to the port at Cochin and thereafter exported.
The chillies sold by the assessee to the buyer had been purchased from unregistered dealers and had not suffered tax. The assessing authority
therefore invoked Section 7-A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, hereinafter referred to as ""the TNGST Act"", and sought to levy
purchase tax on the ground that though an export sale had taken place by reason of Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the sale by
the assessee to those buyers being the penultimate sale and such sale was in Tamil Nadu, nevertheless, as goods had been despatched to a
destination outside the State, Section 7-A(1)(c) of the Act was attracted as that despatch of the goods was not by way of inter-State sale but for
export. The order of the assessing authority was confirmed in appeal and on further appeal to the Special Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the goods
had in fact been sold by the assessee ex-godown at Ariyalur and that, the sale was the penultimate sale and was thus a sale in the Course of export
u/s 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, hereinafter referred to as ""the CST Act"", and held that Section 7-A(1)(c) had been properly applied.
Mr. C. Natarajan, Senior Counsel, appearing for the assessee contended that the Tribunal and the Revenue authorities were in error taking the
view that the sales in the course of export are incapable of being regarded as inter-State sales even when goods are despatched to destination
outside the State prior to the actual exportation, Counsel submitted that though there are only three classes of sales, local, inter-State and export,
the same sale under certain circumstances, is capable of being regarded as more than one kind of sale. Counsel in this context referred to the
decision of the apex Court in the case of Onkarlal Nandlal v. State of Rajasthan reported in [1985] 60 STC 314, a decision rendered by a three-
Judge Bench of the apex Court, wherein the Court observed, with regard to the provisions of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, that,--
..............There is, in our opinion, no antithesis between a sale in the course of inter-State trade or commerce and a sale inside the State. Even an
inter-State sale must have a situs and the situs may be in one State or another. It does not involve any contradiction in saying that an inter-State
sale or purchase is inside a State or outside it. The situs of a sale may fall for consideration from more than (one) point of view. .........If therefore a
question arises whether a sale is exigible to tax by the State Legislature, it may have to be considered whether it is a sale in the course of inter-
State trade or commerce. The same sale in another context may have to be examined from a different point of view for determining where its situs
lies and whether it is a sale inside the State or outside the State. There is therefore no incompatibility in the same sale being both a sale in the
course of inter-State trade or commerce within the meaning of Section 3 of the Central Act as also a sale inside the State in accordance with the
principles laid down in Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Central Act.
The statement of law in the case of Onkarlal Nandlal Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, : was referred to with approval by the Constitution
Bench in the case of Gannon Dunkerley and Co. and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, :
Reliance was placed by counsel also on the decision of the apex Court in the case of Murli Manohar & Co. v. State of Haryana reported in
[1991] 80 STC 79 also a decision rendered by a three learned Judges of the apex Court. The case arose in the context of a claim for purchase tax
under the provisions of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973. The court, after referring to the submissions of counsel that a sale must
necessarily fall within one of the three categories namely local sales or inter-State sales or export sales, observed that :
........We are unable to conceive of a fourth category of sale, which could be neither a local sale nor an inter-State sale nor an export sale. Shri
Gupta, on behalf of the State, contended that the goods might have been directly moved by the assessee to a port for shipment abroad in
pursuance of an export contract entered into by the dealer who purchased from the assessee. Even in such a case if the transport of goods from
the assessees'' place of business to the port is in pursuance of the terms of the sale, the movement of the goods would be occasioned by the sale
made by the assessee and would be an inter-State sale. If, on the other hand, the goods were sent to the port by the assessee subsequent to and
independent of the sale made by him, then, for the purpose of that transport, the assessee would only be an agent of the purchaser and the
movement of the goods in pursuance of the contract of sale entered into by the purchaser and would be one in the course of export within the
meaning of Section 5(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.......
Counsel also fairly brought to our notice the decision of the apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. B.M. Ashraf & Co. reported in
[1997] 107 STC 571 in which the decision in the case of Murli Manohar and Co. and Another Vs. State of Haryana and Another, : was referred
to and distinguished. The Court in that case observed that in the case of Murli Manohar and Co. and Another Vs. State of Haryana and Another, :
the Court having come to the conclusion that the sale was not in the course of export within the meaning of Section 5(1) of the Central Sales Tax
Act, 1956 and it was also not a local sale, it was concluded that the sale in question was inter-State sale and, therefore, would fall within the
exemption contained in Section 9(1) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973.
It was found by the Court that the facts before it were different. In the case of State of Karnataka Vs. B.M. Ashraf and Co., : the goods had not
been taken out of the State but were exported from a port in Karnataka, the question having arisen in the context of claim for purchase tax made
under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act.
The Court held in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. B.M. Ashraf and Co., : that,--
...............There was thus no occasion of movement of goods from one State to another and as the sale in the course of export is not entitled to
the exemption from payment of purchase tax u/s 6 of Karnataka Sales Tax Act, the decision of the High Court [ B.M. Ashraf and Co. Vs. State of
Karnataka, regarding the sales in question as being sales in the State and, therefore, immune from levy of purchase tax, cannot be sustained.
Learned counsel also drew our attention to Section 3 of the CST Act, which sets out the circumstances in which a sale or purchase of goods
can be said to take place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. That section, inter alia, provides that a sale or purchase of goods shall be
deemed to take place in the sale or purchase occasions movement of goods from one State to another. Attention was drawn to Section 5(3) and
the provisions of Section 6(1) of the CST Act both of which were introduced into the Act by Act 103 of 1976 with effect from April 1, 1976.
Section 5(3) deems the penultimate sale preceding the actual export sale also to be a sale '' in the course of export. The proviso to Section 6(1) is
to the effect that the dealer shall not be liable to pay tax under the CST Act on any sale of goods which in accordance with the provisions of Sub-
section (3) of Section 5 is a sale in the course of export of those goods out of the territory of India.
The counsel submitted that the very introduction of the proviso in Section 6 would show that but for the proviso, the penultimate sale when it
was a sale which had occasioned to the movement of goods to a place outside the State, even if such movement was ultimately to terminate
outside the country by reason of becoming part of a further export sale, would still be a sale in the course of inter-State trade or commerce.
Though the question raised by counsel is indeed an interesting one, nevertheless, on the facts of the case before us, it is not necessary for us to
deal with the question as to whether a penultimate sale falling u/s 5(3) of the CST Act can also be regarded as an inter-State sale and consequently
the penultimate sale would be out of the purview of Section 7-A(1)(c) of the State Act.
It is clear from the statement of facts found in the affidavit accompanying the petitioner before us, as also from the facts which the assessee had
disclosed to the assessing authorities, that the contract between the assessee and its purchaser was for the sale of chillies ex-assessee''s godown at
Ariyalur within the State. As between the assessee and its buyer the sale was completed at Ariyalur, the subsequent movement of the goods from
Ariyalur to the port at Cochin cannot be regarded, in the circumstances, as having been occasioned by this sale. The fact that this local sale was
also the penultimate sale u/s 5(3) of the CST Act would not, on that score, render the movement of the goods from within the State to a port
outside the State, a part of the sale as between the assessee and its exporter/buyer. The goods were moved obviously at the instance of and on
behalf of the buyer. The sale so far as the assessee was concerned, was in fact a sale within the State a sale which was also a penultimate sale for
the purpose of Section 5(3) of the CST Act. Having regard to this factual position, the law to be applied is the law declared by the Supreme Court
in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. B.M. Ashraf and Co., : The Court in that case confined the application of the law declared in the case of
Murli Manohar and Co. and Another Vs. State of Haryana and Another, : only to a situation where the sale had occasioned the movement of the
goods outside the State and such sale was a deemed sale in the course of export u/s 5(3) of the CST Act.
The Court has, in clear terms, held in the case of B.M. Ashraf & Co. [1997] 107 STC 571 that where there is a sale in the State but that sale
does not occasion the movement of goods from one State to another and the sale is also a sale in the course of export, such a sale is not entitled to
the exemption from payment of purchase tax u/s 6 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. The provisions of the TNGST Act in this regard is similar.
Both these statutes do not provide for any exemption from the levy of purchase tax where the goods are sold by way of sale in the course of
export.
Though we do not concur with all that is stated by the Tribunal in this impugned order, we decline to interfere with the same as the conclusion
reached by it that the assessee liable to pay purchase tax is correct.
The counsel submitted that the levy of penalty, however, was wholly unjustified as neither the assessing authority nor the assessee were in a
position to comprehend the provision fully as even in the assessment order, the assessing officer did not, even while holding that there was a local
sale, held that such a local sale cannot be regarded as having taken the assessee out of the ambit of Section 7-A of the Act only because of it being
a sale in the course of export, but relied upon the factum of despatch to, the destination outside the State. The assessee, it was submitted, had
bona fide regarded the transaction as one which did not attract purchase tax. It was also submitted that the assessee had not withheld any material,
that it had disclosed its entire turnover and in this background the authorities ought not to have proceeded to levy penalty in a mechanical way as
was done by the assessing officer. The only reason given for the levy of penalty is that the assessee was found to be liable to pay purchase tax and
that the assessee had not paid that tax.
Counsel in this context relied upon the decision of a Bench of this Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Indian Silk Traders reported in
[1994] 94 STC 157 wherein it was held, inter alia, that :
......While the element of deliberateness, wilfulness or a blameworthy conduct on the part of the assessee may not be necessary for invoking
Section 12(5) of the Act, we are clearly of the opinion that the bona fides of the assessee have to be gone into before imposing penalty.....At the
risk of repetition we reiterate that the facts of each case have to be carefully analysed before coming to the conclusion whether a particular return is
incorrect or incomplete and whether the assessee returned an incomplete or incorrect return, more with a view to postpone the tax legitimately due
to the Government, or under a bona fide belief that his return was in accordance with law.
We, therefore, set aside the penalty, but remand that matter back to the assessing authorities to consider the question of levy of penalty in the
light of what has been observed in this order and in the light of the law laid down by this Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Indian Silk
Traders [1994] 94 STC 157.