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 writ petition was barred on the ground that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy under the sales tax law. (ii) Whether the turnover relating to export of spark plugs was exempt under section 5(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act as a sale occasioning the movement of goods out of India and not as an intervening sale in favour of the intermediary corporation.
Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was barred on the ground that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy under the sales tax law.
Analysis: The existence of appellate and revisional remedies does not by itself exclude writ jurisdiction where the impugned action is said to be without jurisdiction or contrary to the express provisions of the statute. The petition was already entertained and had remained pending for years, and the challenge raised a prima facie jurisdictional objection to the assessment order. In such circumstances, a refusal to entertain the writ merely because alternative remedies existed was not warranted.
Conclusion: The preliminary objection based on alternative remedy was rejected and the writ petition was held maintainable.
Issue (ii): Whether the turnover relating to export of spark plugs was exempt under section 5(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act as a sale occasioning the movement of goods out of India and not as an intervening sale in favour of the intermediary corporation.
Analysis: The decisive question was the real nature of the transaction and whether there was any proved intervening sale in India. Reading the export arrangement and the connected documents together, the sale was found to be by the petitioner as exporter, with the intermediary corporation acting only to facilitate the export. The revenue failed to establish any separate taxable sale by the petitioner to the intermediary corporation. In taxation matters the burden lies on the revenue to prove liability, and an assumed but unproved sale could not defeat the export exemption. The reliance on Serajuddin was distinguished because that case involved a proved intervening sale, whereas no such sale was established here.
Conclusion: The turnover was held exempt under section 5(1) and the denial of exemption was unsustainable.
Final Conclusion: The assessment order was set aside to the extent it denied export exemption, and the petitioner succeeded in obtaining relief on the export turnover.
Ratio Decidendi: For exemption under section 5(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, the controlling test is whether the proved sale occasioned the export movement of goods, and an unproved or merely presumed intermediary sale cannot defeat the exemption; the revenue bears the burden of establishing taxability.
TaxTMI 
