APEX TRADERS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are three 'revisions relating to the assessment years 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1983-84 under the Central Sales Tax Act against a combined order of the Tribunal dated 31st March, 1986.

(2.) The assessee dealing in brass wares claimed exemption within the meaning of the proviso to Section 6 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short "the Act, 1956"). Sub-section (1) of Section 6 says that every dealer shall with effect from the date fixed by the Central Government be liable to pay tax under this Act on all sales of goods effected by him in the course of inter-State trade or commerce during any year on and from the date so notified. The proviso to Sub-section (1) says that a dealer shall not be liable to pay tax under this Act on any sale of goods, which in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 5, is a sale in the course of export of those goods out of the territory of India. Sub-section (1) of Section 5 says that a sale or purchase of goods shall be deemed to take place in the course of the export of goods out of the territory of India only if the sale or purchase either occasions such export or is effected by a transfer of documents of title to the goods, after the goods have crossed the customs frontiers of India. Sub-section (3) of Section 5 brings within the category of inter-State sales, the last sale or purchase of any goods preceding the sale or purchase occasioning the export of those goods, if such last sale or purchase took place after and was for the purpose of complying with the agreement or order for or in relation to such export. But the sales or purchases coming within the purview of Sub-section (3) of Section 5 have been exempted under the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act, 1956.

(3.) The assessee claimed exemption under the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 stating that it effected sales to the exporter and furnished forms H in this behalf before the appellate authority. As there were certain cuttings, overwritings and other omissions, the claim of exemption was refused by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial).