Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2021 (3) TMI 959

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... roposed to revise the assessment on the ground that the invoices was raised at Chennai and that movement of the ship to South Korea and Dubai ports were in the course of their voyage and movements of the ships were not as a resulted of contract of export between the foreign buyer and the dealer and that there is neither foreign destination nor foreign seller or other state purchaser or seller. The impugned revision notice is beyond the scope of limitation under Article 286(2) of the Constitution of India read with Section 4(2) of the CST Act, 1956 and the definition of sale in Section 2(n) read with explanation 3(a) (i) of the TNGST Act, 1959. The impugned revision notice therefore has to go. However, this would without prejudice to th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sold two ships which were owned by them since August 1994 to other dealers in Mumbai. Though the agreements between the buyer and seller had taken place at Mumbai Nellore, the commercial invoice for both the ships were raised by Balaji Distilleries, (Shipping Division) at Chennai only. The transaction such as chartered Hire receipts, ship operation expenses relating to the above ships were shown in the books of accounts of Chennai Balaji Distilleries Limited only. The purchaser and seller signed the instrument of sale and signed delivery and acceptance protocol . Further the movement of the ships to South Korea and Dubai Port were in the course of their voyage and the movement of the ships were not resulted in pursuant of contract of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lanation 3(a)(i) of the TNGST Act, 1959 as it stood during the material period. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Show Cause Notice appears to be based on an objection/note prepared by the Accountant General and based on the details furnished by the petitioner in response to the notice dated 01.04.2005 which spells out the date of the contract, actual date of the transactions and the position of the ships on the date of the agreement as Mumabi and Nellore for sale to ICICI Limited, Mumbai and Radiant Shipping Limited, Mumbai in respect of two ships called M.V.Balaji Vintage and M.V.Balaji Premium of petitioner respectively. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the delivery of the ships were m .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s that in this case the commercial invoices were raised at Chennai and was duly declared in the Books of Accounts of the 1st petitioner Chennai in company and as per the agreement between the petitioner and the buyers namely ICICI Limited, Mumbai, Radiant Shipping Limited, Mumbai. He submits the sale took place in Chennai though delivery may have been made outside Chennai. He refers to following passage from the Counter, which reads as under:- The vessels shall be delivered and taken over safely afloat at a safe berth or at a safe Anchorage or in the buyers' option after in a port/place or at sea nominated by sellers and mutually agreed by the buyers. 8. It is therefore submitted that the situs of sale is Chennai and it is immat .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (n) read with explanation 3(a) (i) of the TNGST Act, 1959. The impugned revision notice therefore has to go. However, this would without prejudice to the rights of the respondent to articulate a fresh notice to the 2nd petitioner who has taken over the 1st petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the TNGST Act, 1959 after factoring Section 4(2) CST Act, 1956 and Article 286(2) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the respondent may either issue a fresh notice or a corrigendum to the impugned notice to the 2nd petitioner. 12. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I remit the case back to the respondent to issue a fresh notice or a corrigendum to the impugned notice within a period of 60 days from .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates