2017 (12) TMI 264

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... this common judgment. 2. The petitioner in both the writ petitions is the same. In W.P.(C).No.19614/2017, the issue involves the assessment done against the petitioner under the Central Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred as 'CST Act') for the assessment year 2014-2015, and in W.P.(C).No.25312/2017, the issue involves the assessment done against the petitioner under the CST Act for the assessment year 2013-2014. The petitioner is engaged in inter-state sale, as also export sale, of electric and electronic goods. In the CST assessment for the assessment years in question, initially, the assessments were completed (in W.P.(C).No.19614/2017) by granting an exemption in respect of the export sales effected by the petitioner and appl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hese writ petitions, supporting the reasoning in the assessment orders impugned in the writ petitions. In particular, it is stated that inasmuch as the petitioner had not produced any document to show that the export proceeds in foreign exchange had been received in India, the petitioner had not succeeded in establishing that the goods had been exported. Reliance is also placed on Rule 47(ii) of the KVAT Rules to suggest that, in the absence of a document to show receipt of the export proceeds in India, a dealer cannot claim refund of input tax. The said provision is referred to for the purposes of showing that, in order to avail any concession or exemption from tax on the ground that the sale transaction in question was an export sale, doc....