Export-sale exemption under CST applies when goods are supplied against export orders and used in exported products with identity preserved.

Exemption under section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act was available where the dealer produced form H declarations, showed supply against specific export orders, and established that the goods were actually used in the exported product without losing their identity. The fact that the exported articles were bags or cushion covers, rather than the zips separately, did not defeat the exemption because the zips were integrally incorporated in the export goods. The revisional authority's interference, based only on the nature of the final export articles and without properly considering the declarations and evidence, was unsustainable and was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to exemption under section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 in respect of the turnover relating to zips supplied for use in goods ultimately exported, and whether the revisional order under section 34 of the Act was sustainable.

Issue: Whether the petitioner was entitled to exemption under section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 in respect of the turnover relating to zips supplied for use in goods ultimately exported.

Analysis: The exemption under section 5(3) depends on the existence of form H declarations and proof that the goods sold were supplied against export orders and were used in the export product. The materials on record showed that the petitioner had filed form H declarations, that the goods were supplied pursuant to specific export orders, and that the zips retained their identity and were used in the articles exported by the buyers. The fact that the exported items were bags or cushion covers, and not the zips in isolation, did not defeat the claim where the zips were integrally used in the export goods without change in identity.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to exemption under section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and the levy on that turnover was not sustainable.

Issue: Whether the revisional order under section 34 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 was sustainable.

Analysis: The revisional authority proceeded only on the ground that the exported articles were bags and cushion covers and not zips, without considering the petitioner's objections, the form H declarations, and the evidence showing actual use of the zips in the exported goods. Since the statutory benefit was available on the facts, the revision that disturbed the exemption was not justified.

Conclusion: The revisional order under section 34 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 was unsustainable and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the revisional interference was annulled, and the appellate authority's order was restored to operation.

Ratio Decidendi: For exemption under section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, it is sufficient that the goods sold were covered by form H declarations, supplied against export orders, and actually used in the exported product without losing their identity.

---