AI GAYATHRI TRADING COMPANY PVT LTD Vs. CTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE registration certificate of the petitioner issued by the competent authority of Kerala supported by the supplementary affidavit is filed this day.

(2.) THE matter is taken up for hearing as "Motion". We find that the present petitioner and the concern situated in Kerala are same and identical organisation. The citation relied on behalf of the petitioner reported in [1998] 108 STC 337 (P&H) (Nipha Exports Pvt. Limited v. State of Haryana) is very much applicable to this case. The facts of the case referred are that the petitioner -company having its registered office in Kolkata and branch office in Faridabad in the State of Haryana was purchaser of goods at Kolkata and sending it to its branch office at Faridabad for further transmission by way of export out of the territory of India. Therefore, the dispute arose whether the form 9 is to be granted to the petitioner -company or not. The honourable court of Punjab and Haryana held that the petitioner's goods purchased by the branch office were sent to the head office for the purpose of export. The Kolkata office and branch office at Faridabad are not the two different entities. Therefore, the movement of goods from Faridabad to Kolkata occasioned in course of its export outside the territory of India. Accordingly, form 9 was allowed. In the instant case, on perusal of the annexure "A" of running page to the application, we find that the several contracts were entered into in between the petitioner -company and the foreign buyers for exporting the goods outside the territory of India. All these contracts relate to the period 1999 -2000.

(3.) IT is the submission on behalf of the petitioner that on the basis of such contracts, the petitioner is purchasing tea in auction from Kolkata onward movement to the territory outside India through its head office at Kerala. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get the form 9 as prayed for, to materialise the transaction.