Export-linked purchases, single-point sales tax and suo motu revision: preparatory contracts did not bar levy or revisional jurisdiction.

Purchases made merely to fulfil antecedent export contracts are treated as preparatory steps and do not themselves occasion export, so they are not protected as transactions in the course of export under Article 286(1)(b). Iron and manganese ore purchases falling within Schedule III of the Mysore Sales Tax Act were therefore taxable under the single-point levy in section 5(3)(b). The Commissioner's suo motu revisional power under section 21(2)(i) was held to operate independently of pending appeals, as the statutory restriction in clause (ii) applied only to applications and did not curtail that revisional jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether purchases of iron and manganese ore made to fulfil antecedent contracts for export could be treated as purchases in the course of export and thus escape tax under Article 286(1)(b) of the Constitution of India; (ii) whether such purchases were nevertheless taxable under section 5(3)(b) read with Schedule III of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957; and (iii) whether the Commissioner had jurisdiction under section 21(2) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 to revise the Deputy Commissioner's order despite pendency of appeals before the Appellate Tribunal.

Issue (i): Whether purchases made to implement a prior export contract amount to purchases in the course of export.

Analysis: A purchase made for the purpose of export is only a preparatory step and does not itself occasion the export. The constitutional protection extends only to the transaction that actually occasions the export, not to antecedent purchases made before the export sale is effected. The authorities relied upon by the Court established that integrated activities do not convert a prior purchase into a sale in the course of export.

Conclusion: The purchases were not purchases in the course of export and were not protected by Article 286(1)(b) of the Constitution of India.

Issue (ii): Whether the transactions were taxable under section 5(3)(b) read with Schedule III of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957.

Analysis: Section 5(3)(b) imposes single-point taxation on purchases of goods specified in Schedule III. The expression identifying the point of levy does not require a series of purchases; if there is only one taxable purchase in the State, that transaction itself attracts the levy when made by the dealer liable to tax under the Act. Iron and manganese ore were covered by Schedule III, and the assessee's purchases fell within that charging structure.

Conclusion: The transactions were taxable under section 5(3)(b) read with Schedule III of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957.

Issue (iii): Whether the Commissioner could exercise revisional power under section 21(2) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 notwithstanding pending appeals before the Tribunal.

Analysis: The revisional power under section 21(2)(i) is an independent suo motu power and is not cut down by the limitation in clause (ii), which applies only to applications where no appeal has been preferred to the Tribunal. The proviso only imposes a temporal restriction and does not restrict the width of the suo motu revisional jurisdiction. The apprehension of conflict with appellate proceedings did not defeat the plain statutory language, and the order revised by the Commissioner was not shown to create any operative inconsistency with the pending appeals.

Conclusion: The Commissioner had jurisdiction to revise the Deputy Commissioner's order.

Final Conclusion: The levy on the disputed purchases and the Commissioner's revisional action were upheld, and the assessee obtained no relief in appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: A purchase made merely as a preparatory step for export is not a transaction in the course of export, and the Commissioner's suo motu revisional power under section 21(2)(i) operates independently of the pendency of an appeal unless expressly curtailed by statute.

---