STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. VINYL CABLE INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question that requires our consideration is whether the sales effected by the respondent-assessee were local sales to the exporter or export sales through the agents. THE assessing authority during the revision of the assessment proceedings relating to the year 1971-72 came to the conclusion that the transactions were only sales to a local buyer for export and were not, therefore, export sales by the respondent-assessee. In arriving at this finding the assessing authority did not deal with the contention raised on behalf of the respondent-assessee that the sales effected to the foreign buyers were in the course of export and were effected through the agents. THE first appellate authority noticed the following contentions raised on behalf of the respondent-assessee with a view to show that the sales effected to the foreign buyers were in the course of export and effected through the agents of the assessee, M/s. India Motor Parts and Accessories Ltd. : (a) THE agents M/s. Impal, on our advice, offered to supply cables to the foreign buyer and quoted the rate and delivery schedules. (b) On acceptance from the foreign buyers, the agents informed the principals, the appellants, who started production of the cables. (c) THE cables, as and when they were produced, were despatched through the excise gate pass of the appellants, clearly mentioning the destination of the goods. (d) THE appellants billed on the agents exactly at the rate quoted to the foreign buyers and the agents were allowed a percentage commission for acting on behalf of the appellants for effecting the export. (e) Thus the sales were primarily of export in character and M/s. Impal was not at all a local buyer to attract local tax.

(2.) AFTER having noticed the contentions raised on behalf of the assessee-respondent, the appellate authority, without considering or discussing the contentions, rejected the same on the ground that the assessee-respondent had got no records to prove the contention and even went to the extent of saying that "they are not interested in prosecuting the appeal". The contentions of the assessee-respondent were rejected and the appeal was dismissed. The matter was taken by the assessee-respondent to the tribunal. The contentions which have been raised by the assessee-respondent were reiterated before the Tribunal also. The Tribunal, on the facts and circumstances of the case concluded as follows : "even then in the light of the facts it is clear that there was an agency between the Impal and the appellants. So long as there is proof of agency and so long as the agent has sent the goods, not as his own but as agent of a principal, there is privity of contract between the principal and the foreign buyer, even in cases where the agent has not disclosed the name of the principal. " *