Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>High Court confirms exemption under Central Sales Tax Act for turnover in import sales. Tax cases dismissed.</h1> <h3>The State of Tamil Nadu Versus I. BM World Trade Corporation</h3> The State of Tamil Nadu Versus I. BM World Trade Corporation - [1985] 60 STC 118 (Mad) Issues Involved:1. Whether the turnover of Rs. 1,50,06,766 represents sales in the course of import.2. Applicability of the principles laid down in previous judgments by the Supreme Court and High Court.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Whether the turnover of Rs. 1,50,06,766 represents sales in the course of import:The assessees, IBM World Trade Corporation, claimed exemption on a turnover of Rs. 1,50,06,766.75 for the sale of IBM Computer System Type No. 370/155 to the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Madras, arguing that it was a sale in the course of import. The assessing officer rejected this claim, treating it as a local sale. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the assessment, and the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal later ruled in favor of the assessees, determining that the sale was indeed in the course of import and thus exempt from tax.The High Court examined the terms of the agreement between the assessees and IIT, which included provisions for import licenses, letter of authority, and restrictions on the disposal of goods. The import license and letter of authority issued to IIT precluded the assessees from selling the goods to anyone else. The agreement also stipulated that the title to the goods would remain with the assessees until full payment was made, and IIT was responsible for transit insurance.The Court found that the facts of the case aligned with the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Central Zone, Ernakulam v. Kotak & Co. [1973] 32 STC 6 (SC), where the importer acted as an agent for the purchaser, and the goods were imported based on the purchaser's license. The Court held that the sale of computer equipment to IIT, Madras, was in the course of import and exempt from sales tax under section 5(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act.2. Applicability of the principles laid down in previous judgments by the Supreme Court and High Court:The Revenue argued that the principle laid down in Krishnados Kikani v. State of Tamil Nadu [1976] 38 STC 223 should apply, which was distinguished by the Court. The Court noted that in Krishnados Kikani's case, the purchaser did not obtain an import license, and the seller acted independently, resulting in two sales. However, in the present case, IIT obtained the import license and issued a letter of authority to the assessees, making them agents for the import.The Court also considered the ruling in Binani Bros. (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [1974] 33 STC 254 (SC), where the sale did not occasion the import of goods, and there was no privity of contract between the purchaser and the foreign seller. This case was found distinguishable as the purchaser in the present case (IIT) obtained the import license and authorized the assessees to import the goods.In Mod. Serajuddin v. State of Orissa [1975] 36 STC 136 (SC), the State Trading Corporation acted as an independent entity, not as an agent of the assessee, which differed from the present case where the assessees acted as agents for IIT.The Court concluded that the facts of the present case were in pari materia with Kotak's case, where the import was made by the assessee as an agent for the purchaser, and the sale was considered in the course of import. The stipulation of title remaining with the assessees until full payment was seen as a safeguard for securing the price, not altering the nature of the sale.Conclusion:The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, confirming that the turnover of Rs. 1,50,06,766 represented sales in the course of import and was exempt from sales tax under section 5(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The tax cases were dismissed, and the Revenue was ordered to pay the costs of the assessees.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found