2004 (3) TMI 714 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Import Sales Tax Dispute Resolved: Key Timing Considerations

M/s. State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. Versus The Commercial Tax Officer,

M/s. State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, - TMI, [2005] 142 STC 420 (Mad) Issues:1. Whether the sales made by the petitioner qualify as sales in the course of import under Section 5(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956Rs.2. Whether the transfer of documents of title to the goods occurred before or after the goods crossed the customs frontiers of IndiaRs.3. Whether the petitioner, acting as a canalising agent, was merely collecting expenses or engaging in sales transactionsRs.Issue 1: Sales Qualification under Section 5(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act:The petitioner, a Public Sector Undertaking appointed as a canalising Agency for newsprint import, contended that the transactions were sales in the course of import and thus not liable to tax. However, the respondents argued that the sales were not on the high seas and did not qualify for exemption under Section 5(2) of the Act. The assessing authority treated the sales as local sales post-import, denying the exemption claim. The Appellate Tribunal upheld this decision, stating that sales occurred after the ship crossed the customs barrier, making them local sales. The second respondent affirmed this view, emphasizing the lack of a link between the actual user and the foreign seller, leading to the conclusion that the sales were local and taxable.Issue 2: Transfer of Documents and Customs Frontiers:The critical aspect was whether the transfer of documents of title to the goods happened before the goods crossed the customs frontiers of India, as required by Section 5(2) of the Act. The authorities found that the transfer occurred after the ship reached the Chennai Port, not on the high seas. This timing discrepancy led to the determination that the sales did not take place in the course of import, as the title transfer did not align with the statutory requirement.Issue 3: Role of the Petitioner as a Canalising Agent:The petitioner claimed to act as an agent for consumers, collecting only expenses incurred and not engaging in sales. However, the authorities noted that no commission was payable to the petitioner by the actual users, and sale invoices were issued by the petitioner to users upon payment. The petitioner's role as a bulk licensee and the absence of commission payments indicated a sales transaction rather than a mere expense collection. Additionally, the transfer of documents to the Indian Express while the goods were on the high seas did not alter the nature of the transactions, as the sales were deemed local post-import.In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petitions, finding no merit in the petitioner's arguments. The judgment clarified the legal requirements for sales in the course of import under the Central Sales Tax Act, emphasizing the timing of title transfer and customs frontiers crossing as crucial factors in determining the tax liability of import transactions.