WWW.TAXSCAN.IN - Simplifying Tax Laws

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 07.11.2017 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM W.P.No.9416 of 2009 and M.P.No.2 of 2009 M/s.Zip Industries Ltd., No.118, Broadway, Chennai – 600 108.

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Commercial Tax Officer, Esplande II Assessment Circle, Chennai – 108.

... Respondent

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records on the file of the respondent in CST 10603/2005-2006 dated 30.04.2009 quash the same. For Petitioner

: Mr.V.Ragavachari Mr.S.N.Kirubanandam For Mr.K.Kannaih Nadu

For Respondent

: Mr.K.Venkatesh Government Advocate ORDER

Heard Mr.S.N.Kirubanandam, learned counsel appearing for Mr.K.Kannaih

Naidu,

learned

counsel

for

the

petitioner

and

Mr.K.Venkatesh, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent.

http://www.judis.nic.in

WWW.TAXSCAN.IN - Simplifying Tax Laws

2 2.The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 30.04.2009 under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for the assessment year 2005-2006.

3.The only legal issue involved in this writ petition is whether the petitioner is entitled to claim exemption on the sale of zip fasteners to a readymade garment manufacturer, who has exported the readymade garments outside the territory of India. The respondent rejected the petitioner's claim for exemption on the ground that the petitioner had sold only zip fasteners and what was exported readymade garments through the documents are not proper and the petitioner is not entitled to claim exemption. The legal issue is no longer res integra and has been settled by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka V. Azad Coach Builders Pvt. Ltd., and another [(2010) 36 VST 1 (SC)]. The respondent/ assessee in the said case was a manufacturer and seller of bus bodies in

the

State

of

Karnataka.

One

M/s.T

was

an

exporter

and

manufactured chassis of motor vehicles. On receipt of orders from foreign buyers for buses, the exporter in turn placed orders on the respondent/assessee for bus bodies to be fitted on the chassis supplied by it. The buses were then exported by the exporter. The claim of the

http://www.judis.nic.in

WWW.TAXSCAN.IN - Simplifying Tax Laws

3 respondent/ assessee that its sales were penultimate sales in the course of export was rejected by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the “bus bodies” and “buses” were two different commodities and the bus bodies as such were not exported, but complete buses. The High Court held that the supply of bus bodies by the respondent to the exporter was in the course of export and the words “in relation to such export” extended the scope of the exemption to the extent that even if there was no agreement or order but the sale was in relation to such exports, the exemption could still be claimed under Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The Revenue preferred appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein, it was held as follows: “On the facts, that the transaction between the respondent and the exporter was inextricably connected with the export of goods to outside India. The communication between the foreign buyer and the exporter revealed that the foreign buyer wanted the bus bodies to be manufactured by the respondent under the specifications stipulated by the foreign buyer. The bus bodies constructed and manufactured by the respondent could not be of any use in the local market. Accordingly, the respondent succeeded in satisfying the tests and was eligible to the exemption under Secion 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. When the transaction between the respondent and the exporter and the transaction between the exporter and foreign buyer were inextricably connected

http://www.judis.nic.in

WWW.TAXSCAN.IN - Simplifying Tax Laws

4 with each other, the “same goods” theory had no application.” 4.The above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court will apply with full force to the case on hand as in the case on hand. The petitioner has sold zip fasteners to a manufacturer of readymade garments, who has fixed the zips in the garments and exported the garments outside the territory of India. Therefore, the transaction between the petitioner and the exporter was inextricably connected with the export of the goods outside India. Thus, when the transaction between the petitioner and the exporter and the transaction between the exporter and the foreign buyer were inextricably connected with each other, the “same goods” theory would have no application to the case on hand.

5.For the above reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

07.11.2017 Speaking /Non Speaking Order Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No

http://www.judis.nic.in

WWW.TAXSCAN.IN - Simplifying Tax Laws

5 Sgl To The Commercial Tax Officer, Esplande II Assessment Circle, Chennai – 108.

http://www.judis.nic.in

WWW.TAXSCAN.IN - Simplifying Tax Laws

6 T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. Sgl

W.P.No.9416 of 2009

07.11.2017

http://www.judis.nic.in