1983 (4) TMI 244 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court rules agent not entitled to export exemption as actual exporter was another company.

The court upheld the decision to deny the export exemption to the assessee, as it was determined that M/s. Rallis India Limited was the actual exporter, ... - Issues Involved:1. Entitlement to export exemption.2. Treatment of profit on the sale of capital assets.3. Inclusion of government subsidy in taxable turnover.4. Jurisdiction and limitation of the assessing officer's power to revise assessments.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Entitlement to Export Exemption:The primary issue was whether the assessee was entitled to an export exemption on the turnover of Rs. 8,89,938.80. The assessing officer initially granted this exemption but later reconsidered it, citing the lack of privity of contract between the assessee and the foreign buyer, Nationale De Siderurgie, Algeria. The court examined several documents, including letters and messages exchanged between the assessee, M/s. Rallis India Limited, and the foreign buyer. The court concluded that M/s. Rallis India Limited was the actual exporter, and the assessee acted merely as an agent to fulfill the export contract. The court noted that the invoices were raised on M/s. Rallis India Limited, not the Algerian importer, and the export license was issued in favor of M/s. Rallis India Limited. Therefore, the court upheld the lower authorities' decision to deny the export exemption, as the sale by the assessee was deemed to be to M/s. Rallis India Limited, not a direct export to the foreign buyer.2. Treatment of Profit on the Sale of Capital Assets:The assessee realized Rs. 9,861 as profit on the sale of capital assets during the year 1970-71. The Joint Commercial Tax Officer proposed to treat the sale value of the fixed assets as taxable at 3%. However, this specific issue was not elaborated upon in the court's final judgment, as the primary focus was on the export exemption.3. Inclusion of Government Subsidy in Taxable Turnover:The assessee received Rs. 1,58,976 as a government subsidy earned on an export transaction. The Joint Commercial Tax Officer initially sought to include this amount in the taxable turnover at 3%. However, the officer later dropped this proposal. The court did not delve into this issue further, as it was resolved in favor of the assessee during the assessment proceedings.4. Jurisdiction and Limitation of the Assessing Officer's Power to Revise Assessments:The assessee contended that the reassessment was barred by limitation and that the assessing officer lacked jurisdiction to revise the assessment under section 16(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The court stated that these objections would automatically be answered against the assessee if it concluded that the assessee was not the exporter. Since the court determined that the assessee was not the exporter, these objections were deemed irrelevant.Conclusion:The court confirmed the orders of the appellate authorities, rejecting the assessee's claim for export exemption. The court found that M/s. Rallis India Limited was the actual exporter, and the assessee acted as an agent. Consequently, the sale by the assessee was considered a sale to M/s. Rallis India Limited, not an export sale to the foreign buyer. The revision petition was dismissed with costs, and the assessee was not entitled to the claimed exemption.