TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (9) TMI 601
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... refusal of the Taxation Special Tribunal Printed at page 244 infra. to interfere with the said orders are put in issue. 2.. As the import of the goods, the reason for passing the deten- tion order, the ultimate order passed by the first respondent, the refusal to interfere with the same by the Special Tribunal Printed at page 244 infra., and the argument assailing the said orders on the part of the petitioners and argument on behalf of the Revenue for sustaining the said orders are one and the same, all the cases are taken up together for consideration. 3.. The typical case taken up for consideration is W.P. No. 26751 of 2003. The petitioner, a company incorporated under the Companies Act having its registered office at Calcutta, branche....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed an order levying tax in a sum of Rs. 2,07,900 and a compounding fee of Rs. 4,15,800. 5.. The original goods detention order was taken in O.P. to the Special Tribunal, but the Special Tribunal non-suited the petitioner on the ground that subsequently orders have been passed by the first respondent levying tax and composition fee, the petitioner could seek the remedy before the statutory authority, the said orders are put in issue in all these writ petitions. 6.. Mr. Natarajan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the goods detention order and subsequent order of the first respondent levying tax and composition fee is without jurisdiction, as there is no taxable sale at the hands of the petitioner. The State....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rcial invoice. It has to be concluded that the goods have entered into local area when the goods were stored in the warehouse for which liability under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. They have been effected sales in the course of imports as contended by them ............... On verification, it was found that the dealers effected high sea sales to one Tvl. Polypack Industries, Chennai and Vigro Polymers, Chennai." 11.. After referring the decision of this Court dated March 11, 2003 in Sha Jagroopjee Pukhraj v. Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal in W.P No. 7329 and 7330 of 2003, etc., batch, straight away passed the abovesaid order levying tax and compounding fee in lieu of prosecution. 12.. We are not able to concur with the rea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....purchase of goods shall be deemed to take place in the course of the import of the goods into the territory of India only if the sale or purchase either occasions such import or is effected by a transfer of documents of title to the goods before the goods have crossed the customs frontiers of India". For a sale to be one in the course of import it has to be either one which has occasioned the import or has been effected by a transfer of documents of title to the goods before the goods have crossed the customs frontiers of India. 15.. In this case, though the notice immediately issued after the goods detention order, a wild allegation has been made that the goods were sold by transfer of document of title, but in the ultimate order, nothing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd consequently for section 5(2) of the Act is the crossing the limits of the area of the customs station. 16.. The similar point has been considered by the division Bench of this Court in the case of State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu [2003] 129 STC 294 and this Court following the decision of the Supreme Court in Kiran Spinning Mills v. Collector of Customs (1999) 113 ELT 753, has concluded that until the goods are cleared for home consumption, it cannot be said that the goods have crossed the customs frontiers. The abovesaid ruling is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, as the goods have not been cleared for home consumption under section 68 of the Customs Act. Hence, the first reason given ....