1995 (7) TMI 383 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Sales Tax Exemption Denied for Pallets in Export - Court Emphasizes Direct Relation

R. Viswanathan Versus State of Tamil Nadu

The High Court of Madras, in a judgment by Abdul Hadi, J., ruled that the sale of pallets by the assessee to an exporter did not qualify for exemption ... - Issues:1. Interpretation of section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act regarding exemption for penultimate sale prior to actual sale in the course of export.2. Determination of whether the sale of pallets to an exporter qualifies for exemption under section 5(3) of the Act.3. Comparison of the present case with previous judgments concerning packing materials in relation to export sales.Analysis:The High Court of Madras, in the judgment delivered by Abdul Hadi, J., addressed the issue involving the interpretation of section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The case revolved around whether the sale of pallets by the assessee to an exporter could claim exemption as a penultimate sale prior to the actual sale in the course of export. The Court noted that the pallets were not physically exported but were used to protect the main goods, mica scrap, during transit. The Court emphasized that the exemption under section 5(3) applies to goods directly related to the exported goods, which in this case, were the mica scrap, not the pallets. Therefore, the Court concluded that section 5(3) did not apply to the sale of pallets in this scenario, leading to the dismissal of the tax case.Furthermore, the Court distinguished the present case from previous judgments involving packing materials in export sales. In the case of Packwell Industries (P.) Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu, it was found that the packing materials were not part of the contract for export, leading to a denial of exemption under section 5(3). Similarly, in State of Tamil Nadu v. Catherene Traders, where banian was exported in polythene bags, the Court granted exemption as the bags were integral to the exported commodity. However, in the current case, the Court clarified that the pallets were merely used for transit purposes and were not considered part of the exported goods, unlike the packing materials in the aforementioned cases. Consequently, the Court dismissed the tax case, highlighting the distinction between packing materials and auxiliary items like pallets in the context of export sales.In conclusion, the judgment of the Madras High Court emphasized the strict interpretation of section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act concerning the exemption for penultimate sales in export transactions. The Court's analysis focused on the direct relation of the goods to the exported products, leading to the denial of exemption for the sale of pallets in this particular case. The decision underscored the importance of differentiating between goods integral to the export process and auxiliary items used for transit or packaging, ultimately resulting in the dismissal of the tax case.