TMI Blog1972 (6) TMI 59X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, the question that was canvassed before the assessing authority was that the purchase turnover of cotton imported through Patel and Co. should be exempted as import purchases. The assessing authority did not accept this contention. But the same contention was accepted by the appellate authority, who held that the turnover in cotton purchased by the assessee through Patel and Co. is liable to be exempted under section 5(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, as sales in the course of import. This view of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has been set aside by the Board of Revenue in exercise of its suo motu revision. Before the Board, it was contended by the assessee that the import of cotton by Patel and Co. was on its behalf, and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade from Patel and Co. by the assessee is not a purchase in the course of import cannot be correct in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Khosla and Co. (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes[1966] 17 S.T.C. 473 (S.C.)., and of this court in Larsen and Toubro Ltd. v. Joint Commercial Tax Officer[1967] 20 S.T.C. 150. The view taken by this court in Rajeswari Mills Ltd. v. The State of Madras[1964] 15 S.T.C. 1.that the movement of the goods should be in pursuance of or incidental to the contract entered into by the assessee, and that there should be a privity between the foreign seller and the assessee so as to bring the transaction within section 5(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act has not been accepted as correct in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ercial Taxes[1966] 17 S.T.C. 473 (S.C.)., Rajeswari Mills Ltd. v. The State of Madras[1964] 15 S.T.C. 1. can no longer be regarded as laying down the correct proposition as to the scope of section 3(a) and section 5(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act." As already stated, the Board has taken the view that the sale of cotton to the assessee by Patel and Co. will not be an import sale, following the view in Rajeswari Mills Ltd. v. The State of Madras(3) which is no longer good law in view of Khosla and Co. (P.) Ltd., v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes[1966] 17 S.T.C. 473 (S.C.).We are of the view that the facts in this case directly attract the principles laid down in Khosla and Co. (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes[1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
