TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (8) TMI 929
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es and skins from other merchants to whom it issued declarations in form H in respect of the purchases of raw hides and skins. As a result of the issue of declarations in form H no sales tax was leviable on the selling dealers. After purchases of raw hides and skins the dealer processed them and manufactured leather by carrying out the processes of tanning, dressing, etc. Thereafter it manufactured shoe uppers which have admittedly been exported to some other countries. 5.. Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 grants exemption to last sale of the exported goods. It reads as under: "(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the last sale or purchase of any goods preceding the sale or purchase occasioning the export of those goods out of the territory of India 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." 6.. In order that the selling dealer may claim exemption on such last sales the purchasing dealer has to issue a certificate of export in form H prescribed under the Central Sales Tax (Registra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as been allowed by the Tribunal holding that the assessing officer was not certain about the facts and, therefore, it was not established that the declaration in form H was false. The Tribunal has pointed out that the assessing officer has at some place mentioned that the dealer purchased cow-boy leather and exported shoe uppers and at another place he mentioned that the dealer purchased leather. The Tribunal also took the view that the shoe upper exported by the dealer did not change the nature of the goods and, therefore, the goods exported were the same as were purchased and for this reason also no penalty could be levied. 9.. The short question that is involved in this revision petition, therefore, is whether the dealer manufactured a different thing out of the goods purchased by it and it was that different thing, i.e., shoe uppers that was exported. The Tribunal's observation that the assessing officer was not clear about the thing purchased and in respect of which form H was issued is misplaced. It is specifically mentioned at page 2 of the assessing officer's order that the dealer purchased raw hides and by processing them in its own factory it produced finished leather fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Legislature for the purpose of exigibility to State sales tax but on the basis of what is commonly known or recognised in commercial parlance. The Tribunal has referred to Commissioner, Sales Tax v. Girdhari Lal Football Maker [1987] 65 STC 287 (All.); 1987 UPTC 93 in which the assessee who was a manufacturer of football and volleyball covers and not bladders sold such covers to exporter was held to be entitled to exemption under section 5(3) of the Act. Reliance is also placed on Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Tin Manufacturing Co. of India 1989 UPTC 856. There is nothing in this judgment which is akin, to the facts of the present case. It seems that hocca tobacco paste packed in tin containers was exported and it was held that exemption under section 5(3) would be available on the last sale of such tin containers. Learned counsel for the dealer-respondent also placed reliance on the aforesaid judgments in support of his contention that the shoe uppers were not different from leather and, therefore, the statement made in form H could not be treated to be false. 11.. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel placed reliance on Vijayalaxmi Cashew Company v. Deputy Commercial Ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es tax on the sale of goods in the course of export and that in any case the raw hides and skins purchased by the dealer stood exported though in the form of shoe uppers and, therefore, no penalty should be levied. This contention has no force. The reason is that article 286 does not protect local sales even though goods purchased in such local sales are ultimately exported out of India. Such an argument was repelled by the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Vijayalaxmi Cashew Company [1996] 100 STC 571; 1996 UPTC 602. Learned counsel for the assessee-respondent asserted that while issuing certificate in form H the dealer did not make any false statement because the finished leather and raw hides and skins were provided to be one and the same thing in section 3-AAAA and the shoe uppers were merely pieces of leather cut out of the leather sheets and could not be treated as a separate and different commodity. He emphasised that the shoe uppers cannot be used as a consumer goods and it was leather that was exported in the form of shoe uppers just to reduce the volume or bulk of the consignment and to save transport and other costs. A perusal of the Tribunal's order would show th....