BAWAR PRIME TANNERY Vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER CT II

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is a dealer in hides and skins. According to the statutory authorities, the dealer used to buy hides and skins, tan them and sell the dressed hides and skins mostly to exporters. Against the determination of turnover by the assessing authority for the assessment year 1978-79, the appellant filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner where the principal objection raised related to the purchase turnover of raw hides and skins which purchases had been made by the assessee for the purpose of complying with the agreement or order for or in relation to such export. In short, the assessee had claimed exemption by virtue of section5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, hereinafter referred to as "the Central Act" read with the proviso to section9 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, hereinafter called "the State Act". THE Appellate Assistant Commissioner, after hearing the parties, remitted the matter to the assessing authority to re-examine the appellant's claim in the light of the judgment of this Court in Mahi Traders v. State of Tamil Nadu 1980 (45) STC 327. While the matter was pending finalisation before the assessing authority, the Joint Commissioner, in exercise of the suo motu powers of revision, proposed to revise the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and after issuing notice to the assessee and inviting objections as well as hearing the assessee, the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was set aside and that of the assessing authority was restored. THE question in short, therefore, in this appeal is whether the benefit of section 5(3) exemption under the Central Act can be granted to the appellant.

(2.) THE precise issue came up for consideration by a Bench of this Court in Azeezur Rahman & Co. v. State of Tamil Nadu 1991 (82) STC 355 and after a detailed discussion and noticing that the judgment of this Court rendered in Mahi Traders v. State of Tamil Nadu 1980 (45) STC 327 had been affirmed by the Apex Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Mahi Traders 1989 AIR(SC) 1167, 1989 (23) ECR 193, 1989 (40) ELT 266, 1989 (1) JT 196, 1989 (73) STC 228, 1989 (1) Scale 267, 1989 (1) SCC 724, 1989 (1) SCR 445, 1989 (1) UJ 593, 1989 (8) STJ 139, 1989 (22) ECC 1, 1989 UPTC 737, 1989 SCC(Tax) 190this Court opined thus :