TMI Blog1990 (7) TMI 333X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hough admittedly the purchase of such prawn precedes the export of frozen shrimps by the assessee-dealer to the foreign countries." 2.. This question arose on account of refusal by the taxing authorities to give protection to the dealer under section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act which reads as follows: "5. When is a sale or purchase of goods said to take place in the course of import or export- (1) and (2)........ (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the last sale or purchase of any goods preceding the sale or purchase occasioning the export of those goods out of the territory of India shall also be deemed to be in the course of such export, if such last sale or purchase took place after, and was for the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egard both as shrimps, prawns and lobsters. The only difference is that processed shrimps, prawns and lobsters are ready for the table while raw shrimps, prawns and lobsters are not, but still both are, in commercial parlance, shrimps, prawns and lobsters. It is undoubtedly true that processed shrimps, prawns and lobsters are the result of subjecting raw shrimps, prawns and lobsters to a certain degree of processing but even so they continue to possess their original character and identity as shrimps, prawns and lobsters, notwithstanding the removal of heads and tails, peeling, deveining and cleaning which are necessary for making them fit for the table. Equally it makes no difference in character or identity when shrimps, prawns and lobste ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ked into for application of section 5(3). Academically, Mr. Mishra is correct. In the present case, however, there is no dispute on facts that raw prawn being processed was being exported describing it as forzen shrimps. The only ground on which protection of dealer under section 5(3) was rejected is on account of the fact that prawn when processed are different commercial commodity. The same having been clearly answered by the Supreme Court in the decision referred to above, submission of Mr. Mishra has no force on the facts of this case. 8.. In the result, the question is to be answered in the negative in favour of the dealer. No costs. J.M. MAHAPATRA, J.-I agree. Reference answered in the negative. Since reported in [1988] 68 STC 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
