TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1987 (4) TMI 470
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1187 of 1986 relates to the sales tax assessment year 1985-86; Writ Petition No. 12215 of 1986 relates to the provisional assessment of sales tax for the month of May, 1986 (for the assessment year 1986-87). For the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86 the petitioner's prayer is to quash the show cause notices issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Vizianagaram, requiring the petitioner to show cause why turnovers of Rs. 97,75,925 and Rs. 2,12,500 respectively should not be assessed to tax at 6 per cent and additional tax at 1/2 per cent under-section 5-A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 and surcharge at 10 per cent on the tax due under section 6-B of the aforementioned Act. In Writ Petition No. 12215 of 1986 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a shall also be deemed to be in the course of such export, if such last sale or purchase took place after, and was for the purpose of complying with, the agreement or order for or in relation to such export." It may be pointed out that section 5(3) of the CST Act above referred envisages that goods are eligible for exemption on their preceding sale or purchase only when the same goods are agreed to be supplied to the foreign buyers. Exemption is not allowable if the goods agreed to be supplied to the foreign buyers are different from the goods purchased. 6.. The petitioner's contention before the sales tax authorities is that raw cashew-nuts are purchased in the State of Andhra Pradesh solely for the purpose of complying with the agre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich reference has already been made above. Learned counsel pointed out that the sales tax authorities function in the State of Andhra Pradesh subject to the superintendence of this Court under article 227 of the Constitution of India and the authorities are, therefore, bound to follow the judgment of this Court above referred. Learned counsel submitted that the sales tax authorities cannot refuse to follow the decision of this Court on the ground that a contrary view has taken by the Madras, Karnataka and Kerala High Courts. 9.. Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax Department does not dispute the fact that the petitioner is entitled to claim exemption under section 5(3) of the CST Act, if it could be shown that the goods purchas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... extracting cashew-nut kernel, it is held by the Supreme Court that kernel and raw cashew-nut are separate commercial commodities. Learned Government Pleader also relied on the judgment of the Madras High Court in Dinod Cashew Corporation v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer [1986] 61 STC 1 where the Madras High Court dissented from the judgment of this Court in Singh Trading Co. v. Commercial Tax Officer, Srikakulam [1979] 44 STC 1 above referred and held that raw cashew-nut and kernel are two different commercial products. It is submitted that the Madras High Court's decision is the subject-matter of appeal in the Supreme Court. Learned Government Pleader also invited attention to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Peirceleslie India....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... view is already the subject of an appeal in the Supreme Court. We, therefore, feel that no useful purpose will be served by our referring the matter to a Full Bench for reconsideration, as either side is likely to carry the matter further to the Supreme Court. We find that the judgment of the Division Bench in Singh Trading Co. case [1979] 44 STC 1 (AP) held the field for a period of seven years. A perusal of that judgment would show that the conclusion was reached on the basis of various other judgments of this Court as well as other High Courts. In our opinion, it would be inappropriate to refer the matter for reconsideration by a Full Bench just because there is a contrary view taken by another High Court or High Courts. What is more si....