TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 192
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Mohammed Shaffiq, learned Special Government Pleader and Mr.R.Swarnavel, learned Government Advocate (Taxes) appearing for respondents 2 & 3. 2. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners, who are registered dealers on the file of the third respondent herein under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. 3. Since the facts are identical and the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is a common order, it would suffice to take note of the facts in W.P.No.28261 of 2004 wherein the name of the dealer is M/s.Plastic Sales Corporation, Chennai-79. The relevant assessment year is 1991-92. They had reported a total and taxab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aring and other charges in favour of the respective high sea buyers only. Thus, in all cases, it is obviously established that the goods have been sold on high sea sale basis by transfer of documents of title to the goods and that the goods have been cleared by the ultimate buyers through clearing agents from the Customs House after the date of high sea sales contract as well us subsequent to the date of invoice made by the appellants. The documents now produced by the appellants were also verified by the Departmental Representative and found in order, Further under Sec.4(2) of the CST Act, 1956, the documents of title in the course of import can only be the Bill of lading as held by the Hon'ble Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Main Bench) in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... support of his claim and pleaded to allow the claim : 1. T.A.No.369/97 and 370/ 07 (Main Bench) dated 2.9.98 2. The Supreme Court decision 1998 (78) ECR & 753 (SC) in Civil Appeal No.8870/ 96 dated 29.9,98 in the case of MMTC. 3. Andhra Pradesh High Court decision reported in 110 STC 394 1998 in the case of MMTC. 4. Ap.CST.261/98 dated 21.1.97 of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) VII, Chennai; Therefore, the Assessing Officer is not, correct in disallowing the claim on high sea sales on the entries made in the Bill of Entry. Further, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also respectfully following the above referred judgments, I set aside the assessments made ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... recorded that the original Bill of Entry for home consumption contained only the name of the actual importer ie. Tvl. Raj Chem Plast and that there was a difference between the Bill of Entry produced before the Department and the original bill available with the Customs Authority. 10. This finding stems out of the observation/finding rendered by the Assessing Officer. The order passed by the Assessing Officer was tested for its correctness by the First Appellate Authority, before whom, the dealer produced voluminous documents and in particular, Bills of Lading, which were documents of title and after verifying the documents and allowing the Department to verify, the First Appellate Authority found that the sales were genuine high sea sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me and the customs duty was paid only on the imported value and not on the high seas value, were without any merit. 10. Given the fact that the Bill of Lading is the document of title and admittedly it carried the name of the ultimate buyer and that there was no denial of the fact that the assessee had transferred the goods before it crossed the Customs Station, rightly the said authority granted relief in favour of the assessee. As rightly pointed out, the only ground on which the claim was rejected was the difference in the name found in the Bill of Entry available with the assessee and the one with the Customs Authorities. It is of relevance to note herein that the Bill of Lading dated 05.05.1992 was endorsed in favour of the fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n their importation and the time when they are cleared for home consumption, includes any owner or any person holding himself out to be the importer" 12. In the light of the said definition and read in the background of Sections 46 and 47 of the Customs Act, we do not think that the Revenue can successfully canvass its case based on entries in the Bill of Entry. In the absence of any details as to whether the said entries relate to the one in the Bill of Entry for home consumption or any Bill of Entry for warehousing, the Revenue's revision merits to be dismissed." 12. The view expressed by us in the preceding paragraphs is fully supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kawarla....