TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (2) TMI 776
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 4,20,70,900 purporting to be the liability relating to the accounting period August, 2004 to March, 2005. The assessing authority has called upon the assessee to pay this tax after determining the liability by rejecting the claim of the petitioner-assessee that the entire turnover is relatable to sales in the course of import or export and therefore, entitled for exemption under section 5(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner though has statutory remedy of appeal under section 20 of the Act has chosen to approach this court to question the legality of the assessment order on the premise that the statutory appeal is not an efficacious remedy and the subject-matter of the order involving a pure question of law, it has becom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sposal of this petition. (v) Issue any other writ or relief as this honourable court deems to fit under the facts and circumstance of the case and is the interest of justice. Government advocate has been directed to take notice for the respondents and time was granted to him to file objection statement. Matter had come up for preliminary hearing in "B" group on February 9, 2009 and has been relisted today at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Randhir Chawla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Shankare Gowda, learned counsel for the petitioner, would vehemently urge that the matter involved in the present writ petition is a pure question of law particularly one of the liability that can be said to ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icer [1998] 111 STC 434 (SC) (v) Unique Creations (Bangalore) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [2004] 135 STC 213 (Karn) (vi) Flemingo (DFS) Private Ltd. v. State of Kerala [2005] 142 STC 435 (Ker) (vii) Tarajyot Polymers Limited v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer [2005] 140 STC 239 (Mad) (viii) Motor Industries Company Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Asst. I), Bangalore City Division, Bangalore [1983] 52 STC 206 (Karn) (ix) State of H.P. v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. [2005] 142 STC 1 (SC) (x) Dredging Corporation of India Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1991] 82 STC 235 (Orissa) (xi) State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu [2003] 129 STC 294 (Mad) (xii) Kiran Spinning Mills v. Collector of Cust....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner has taken me through parts of the impugned order, passed by the assessing authority. The basic dispute appears to be whether the sale was actually in the course of import or export or otherwise. This is obvious from the observation of the assessing authority in the order which reads as under: "As per the provisions of section 5(2) of the CST Act if the transaction does fit into the provision of section 5(2) of the CST Act, i.e., sales in the course of import the goods should be delivered directly to the passenger by the customs warehouse by transferring the documents of title to goods or endorsing the documents in the name of buyer without taking delivery of the goods. But here the assessee have taken delivery of the goods fro....