TMI Blog1957 (11) TMI 13X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat all these items represented sales outside India and that the companies listed above acted only as the agents of the petitioner assessee to effect these export sales; (2) even if the sales be viewed as sales to each of the companies mentioned above, the sales were in the course of export and were therefore covered by the exemption guaranteed by Article 286 of the Constitution; and (3) the sales were completed only on the acceptance of the exported goods by the foreign buyers at the ports of destination and were therefore not liable to be taxed under the Madras General Sales Tax Act. At the stage of the arguments before us the learned counsel for the petitioner did not press the claim under any of these heads with reference to the sales in favour of Srinivas and Co., which were to the extent of Rs. 24,582-7-4. The petitioner's liability to pay tax on that turnover is therefore no longer in dispute. With reference to items 1 and 2, sales to Gordon Woodroffe and Co., and to the Madras Hides and Skins Exporters Ltd., the sales themselves were effected by the assessee at Madras. The contracts with the Madras Hides and Skins Exporters Ltd. provided that "the property in the goods shal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chromite Ltd.(2)[1955] 27 I.T.R. 128." The contracts with the Madras Hides and Skins Exporters Ltd., specifically provided that the property in the goods sold passed to the vendees only after the delivery of the shipping documents. The specific recital in the contracts with Gordon Woodroffe and Co., Ltd., was that payment was to be on presentation of the shipping documents which clearly implied that the property in the goods passed to Gordon Woodroffe and Co., Ltd., as the buyers only after the presentation of the shipping documents. In both cases the property in the goods sold passed to the buyers only after the goods crossed the customs barrier and got into the stream of export. Thus they were sales in the course of export. The assessee's claim that these two items of turnover of Rs. 1,80,925-2-10 and Rs. 1,19,846-10-2 were exempt from tax liability will have to be upheld. To that extent the order of the Tribunal will have to be modified. In the view we have taken of these sales and their liability to be assessed to sales tax, it may not be necessary to consider the first and the third of the contentions of the learned counsel for the assessee which we have mentioned above. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us including expenses incurred and interest thereon." These again were terms for the payment of the price of the goods sold and did not, in our opinion, really affect the question for determination, when did the title to the goods sold pass from the petitioner as vendor to Rallis (India) Ltd., as vendees. We are unable to accept the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner that on these terms we should hold that title to the goods passed to Rallis (India) Ltd., only after delivery to them of the shipping documents. We have pointed out earlier that the sales were completed by delivery of the goods sold to the buyer at his godown at Madras. We are clearly of opinion that the sales to Rallis (India) Ltd., did not constitute either export sales or sales in the course of export. The sales were completed before export and it was the buyer that exported the goods. They were sales for export. Viewed from the point of view of the buyer, Rallis, they were purchased for export. Such sales are not within the scope of Article 286 of the Constitution. That was what we pointed out in Gandhi and Sons case [1955] 6 S.T.C. 694., in which we applied the principles laid down by the Supreme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner. The learned counsel invited our attention to some of the entries in the account books of Haji Abdul Wahab and Sons. But he admitted that those proceeded on the basis of purchases of the goods by Abdul Wahab from the petitioner, debiting him with their price. No doubt the price was computed, as in the case of Rallis, after providing for the deduction of shipping charges, freight and insurance charges. We have again to point out that the mode of computation of the price payable is not enough to make it a C.I.F. contract, in the sense that the purchase was concluded only by delivery of the shipping documents. The amount may be large, but in the absence of material, which the petitioner alone could have furnished, to determine the true scope of the contracts between himself and Haji Abdul Wahab and Sons, we have to reject the claim of the petitioner, that the sales should be viewed either as export sales or at least as sales in the course of export. They were sales for export-export by the buyer Haji Abdul Wahab and Sonsand they were therefore not within the scope of Article 286 of the Constitution. Though what we have said earlier is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
