TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the dealer had shown sufficient cause for non-production of declaration forms within the time prescribed so as to be permitted to produce them at the appellate stage; and (ii) whether the impugned sales, effected by transfer of documents of title while the goods remained within the customs station and before clearance, were sales in the course of import entitled to exemption/deduction.
Issue (i): whether the dealer had shown sufficient cause for non-production of declaration forms within the time prescribed so as to be permitted to produce them at the appellate stage.
Analysis: The proviso to rule 27A(9) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941 empowered the appellate or revisional authority to allow late production of declaration forms where the dealer was prevented by sufficient cause from producing them within the prescribed time. On the materials produced, including correspondence showing that the forms were not supplied by the purchasing dealers despite reminders, the authorities below failed to exercise their discretion properly. The evidence was sufficient to discharge the burden of proof and to show that the dealer was prevented by sufficient cause from producing the forms at assessment stage.
Conclusion: The dealer was entitled to produce the declaration forms at the appellate stage, and the contrary finding was against the assessee.
Issue (ii): whether the impugned sales, effected by transfer of documents of title while the goods remained within the customs station and before clearance, were sales in the course of import entitled to exemption/deduction.
Analysis: Under section 5(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, a sale is in the course of import if it occasions import or is effected by transfer of documents of title before the goods cross the customs frontiers of India. Reading section 2(ab) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 with the relevant provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, the expression means that the goods must cross the entire area of the customs station and obtain free access into the country after customs clearance. Mere unloading from the ship and arrival within the customs station does not amount to crossing the customs frontiers. Since the sales were effected before clearance and while the goods were still within the customs station, the sales fell within section 5(2) of the 1956 Act and attracted the corresponding deduction under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941.
Conclusion: The impugned sales were sales in the course of import and the disallowance of exemption/deduction was against the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The assessment and appellate/revisional orders were unsustainable to the extent they refused late production of declaration forms and treated the impugned transactions as taxable local sales; fresh assessment was directed in accordance with the finding that the sales were covered by the import-sale exemption.
Ratio Decidendi: For purposes of section 5(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, goods cross the customs frontiers of India only when they pass beyond the full limits of the customs station and obtain free access into the country after customs clearance, and late production of declaration forms may be allowed where sufficient cause for earlier non-production is proved.
TaxTMI 
