Export-sale under section 5(1) turns on post-customs transfer of title documents and fair opportunity to prove the claim.

Limitation was not a bar where the revisional order was passed within four years of service of the Deputy Commissioner's order, and the Commissioner was found to have exercised revision against that later order. On export-sale treatment under section 5(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, the second limb required inquiry into whether documents of title were transferred only after the goods crossed the customs frontiers of India. Because the revisional authority applied the wrong test, made no proper findings on the material facts, and did not give an effective opportunity to produce relevant material, the revision could not stand and the matter was remanded for fresh decision.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revisional order was barred by limitation under the State sales tax law; (ii) whether the turnover could be denied export-sale treatment under section 5(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 without proper consideration of the requirements of the second limb and without affording an effective opportunity to place the relevant material.

Issue (i): Whether the revisional order was barred by limitation under the State sales tax law.

Analysis: The revisional order was directed against the Deputy Commissioner's order and was passed within four years from the date on which that order had been served on the assessee. The contention that the Commissioner had revised an earlier order of the Commercial Tax Officer was not accepted, because the record showed that the revisional jurisdiction had been exercised against the later order of the Deputy Commissioner.

Conclusion: The limitation plea failed and the revisional order was not barred by time.

Issue (ii): Whether the turnover could be denied export-sale treatment under section 5(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 without proper consideration of the requirements of the second limb and without affording an effective opportunity to place the relevant material.

Analysis: The second limb of section 5(1) applies where the sale is effected by transfer of documents of title after the goods have crossed the customs frontiers of India. The relevant inquiry is therefore not confined to payment of price, but extends to the dates of crossing the customs frontiers and transfer of the documents of title. The Deputy Commissioner had proceeded on an incorrect test and had not recorded findings on the material facts required for the second limb. At the same time, the show-cause notice issued in revision did not clearly indicate that the claim was being examined on that footing, and the assessee had not been given a proper opportunity to place the necessary material before the revisional authority.

Conclusion: The revisional order could not be sustained and the matter had to be reconsidered after giving the assessee an opportunity to adduce the relevant material.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded to the extent that the revisional order was set aside and the matter was sent back for fresh decision in accordance with law after further enquiry.

Ratio Decidendi: For export under the second limb of section 5(1), the decisive question is whether the documents of title were transferred only after the goods crossed the customs frontiers, and denial of that claim without a fair opportunity to place the relevant material is unsustainable.

---