1988 (7) TMI 399

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Y, J.-The only question that arises in this T.R.C. is whether the petitioner, a manufacturer of gunnies, is entitled to claim exemption under section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, in respect of the turnover relating to sale of gunnies in favour of three firms, viz., M/s. Indian Barytes and Chemicals, M/s. Ramalingeswara Pulverising Mills and M/s. Star Barytes, Cuddapah (Private) Limited....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s, Cuddapah (Private) Limited]. The petitioner's claim for exemption was rejected by all the authorities including the Tribunal on the ground that the export was not by the firms/company to whom the petitioner sold the gunnies but by other individuals and presumably there was a sale by the said firms/company to the said individual exporters. This view is challenged by the learned counsel for th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the said firms. Merely because K. Obul Reddy was a partner in the firm M/s. Indian Barytes and Chemicals or that C.M. Ramanatha Reddy was a partner in M/s. Ramalingeswara Pulverising Mills, it does not follow that the said firms became the mine-holders. It would not be right to confuse the firm with the partner or to treat them as synonymous in the context. It is not the case of the petitioner ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent to bring the case within the four corners of section 5(3) of the Act. It must further be proved that the goods purchased were actually exported by the purchaser. In this case no such proof is forthcoming. The relevant facts must be proved by the person who claims exemption or seeks a particular benefit. It is not a matter of presumption. As stated above, there is no evidence that export was ef....