Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

1998 (6) TMI 55

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding,--- (i) the assessee was not an agent of the export house ? (ii) in substance the export house has not purchased the goods ? (iii) export process has been actually done by the assessee and not the export house ? (iv) 'both are entitled to the benefit' ?" As the assessment orders considered in both the cases are relating to 1983-84 with similar set of facts and the real question to be considered is regarding the application of section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as requested by the parties, both the reference cases are answered by this common judgment. The assessees are processors of frozen sea foods. Some of their processed goods are exported directly to the foreign buyers. Part of their turn over are exported by the export houses. With regard to the direct exports by them to the foreign buyers there is no dispute. The question is whether they are entitled to the benefit of section 80HHC for the relevant year for the exports done through the export houses. It is not disputed that the foreign buyers had contracts only with the recognised export ho....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ill not claim them." The documents were prepared by the assessees on account of the export houses and goods were put on board by the assessees. The documents were prepared on account of the export houses. It is also not disputed that the benefit of section 80HHC during the relevant year was claimed by the export houses and they obtained the same. But, according to the Tribunal, that will not prevent the assessees from taking the benefit and the assessees being the real exporters are entitled to take the benefit of section 80HHC. During the relevant time section 80HHC was as follows : "80HHC. Deduction in respect of export turnover.-(1) Where the assessee, being an Indian company or a person (other than a company), who is resident in India, exports out of India during the previous year relevant to an assessment year any goods or merchandise to which this section applies, there shall, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section, be allowed, in computing the total income of the assessee, the following deductions, namely :--- (a) a deduction of an amount equal to one per cent. of the export turnover of such goods or merchandise during the previous year ; a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....certificate from the Export House or Trading House containing such particulars as may be prescribed and verified in the manner prescribed that in respect of the export turnover mentioned in the certificate, the Export House or Trading House has not claimed the deduction under this section ; . . . ." Such disclaimer certificate was insisted upon only when the supporting manufacturers claim the benefit. When export houses are directly claiming, such certificates from the supporting manufacturers or processors were not necessary. During the relevant assessment year 1983-84, there was no specific provision for enabling the supporting manufactures to claim this benefit. The scheme of the Act is clear that the benefits can be availed only by one party and simultaneously cannot be claimed by export houses and processors or supporting manufacturers. The Tribunal after going through the agreement was of the opinion that the real exporters are the assessees, the processors, and export is done through the export houses and the benefits under section 80HHC can be claimed by the assessee even though such benefits were received by the export houses. The Tribunal relied on the decision of t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt of the export houses, but the assessees relied on the dicta of the Supreme Court in C. T. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [1997] 104 STC 94. There the Supreme Court considered the question whether the sale by the assessee is the penultimate sale in the course of export and covered by the terms of section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The Supreme Court in the above case after relying on the decision in Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer [1977] 40 STC 42 (SC), held that while interpreting the terms of the agreement, the court has to look into the substance rather than the form of it and found that the real exporter in the above case is not the State Trading Corporation but the C.T. Ltd., itself, even though the documents were prepared on account of the State Trading Corporation. But the facts of the case were different. It was found by the Supreme Court in the above case that under the terms of the contract between the appellant and the STC, the STC was merely an agent and there was no sale of the tea by the appellant to the STC and the sale of the tea was directly by the appellant, therefore, the sale done by the appellant was penultimate sale. Therefore, the c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ce export of mineral ore was canalised through it. The STC in turn entered into contracts with foreign buyers. The High Court held in respect of sales under the first two contracts directly with the foreign buyer there is exemption from sales tax being in the course of export. But it held that the sales under the contract with the STC were not exempt from sales tax under article 286(1)(b) of the Constitution read with section 5(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The majority of the Constitution Bench, speaking through Ray C.J., upheld the decision of the High Court against the assessee. In this connection we also refer to the decision of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Bell Gorm Nilgiri Plantations Co. v. Sales Tax Officer [1964] 15 STC 753 (SC). In the cases before us the assessees had not entered into any agreement with the foreign buyers. There was no privity of contract between the foreign buyers and the assessees. They could not sell any goods in their own name to the foreign buyers. Since as per the agreement between the export houses and the assessees the goods were to be boarded on the ship by them, the documents were prepared "on account of the export h....