Export-sale exemption for sugar shipments to Mahe upheld where the contract occasioned export and goods were actually exported.

Sales of sugar booked to Mahe were treated as sales in the course of export because the contracts occasioned the export and the goods were in fact transported outside India; the place of delivery or passing of property was immaterial on those facts, so the sales were exempt from sales tax. A separate question sought to be added at the dealer's instance was held incompetent because section 11(1) required a separate application by the dealer, and that procedural requirement had not been met. The export exemption point was therefore answered for the assessee, while the additional reference question was declined.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the sales of sugar booked to Mahe were sales in the course of export outside India and therefore exempt from levy of sales tax. (ii) Whether the additional question sought to be referred at the instance of the dealer in the absence of a separate application under section 11(1) was competent.

Issue (i): Whether the sales of sugar booked to Mahe were sales in the course of export outside India and therefore exempt from levy of sales tax.

Analysis: The goods were sold under contracts with Mahe parties, consigned by rail to Mahe railway station within Indian territory, and thereafter transported to Mahe town in French territory. The decisive consideration was that the export was occasioned by the contract of sale and the goods were in fact exported. The place where delivery was taken or where property passed was held to be immaterial in such circumstances. The matter was treated as covered by the earlier Full Bench view on similar facts.

Conclusion: The sales were in the course of export and were exempt from sales tax; the answer to this issue was in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the additional question sought to be referred at the instance of the dealer in the absence of a separate application under section 11(1) was competent.

Analysis: A reference under section 11(1) required a separate application by the dealer on the question on which reference was sought, while the Commissioner's right under section 11(3) was distinct. In the absence of a separate application by the dealer, the revising authority could not lawfully include an additional question at the dealer's instance in the Commissioner's reference.

Conclusion: The reference of the additional question was incompetent and the issue was answered against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The principal reference was answered in favour of the assessee on the export exemption issue, while the separately referred additional question was declined as incompetent.

Ratio Decidendi: A sale is in the course of export when the export is occasioned by the contract of sale and the goods are in fact exported, even if delivery is taken within Indian territory; a dealer cannot secure a reference of an additional question without a separate application under section 11(1).

---