Report No. 30
Privity.-In some of the decisions, the test adopted was absence of privity between the foreign buyer and the Indian seller or the foreign seller and the Indian buyer, as the case may be.1-2-3-4
In a Calcutta case,5 it was recognised that if the Government, by reason of the Colliery Control Order, 1945, directed the assessee who was dealing in coal, to sell coal, to parties outside India, and if the assessee delivered the goods to shipping agents as directed by the Government, then that would be a sale "in the course of export". On. the other hand, if the assessee was directed to deliver the goods to the Government, and then the Government was to deliver the goods to the shipping agents, then the Government would become the owner and the purchaser, and the sale would not be a sale "in the course of export".
1. Gandhi Sons v. State of Madras, AIR 1955 Mad 722 (725), para. 15: 6 STC 694.
2. Haji Abdul Gaffoor Saib & Co. v. State of Madras, AIR 1958 Mad 314 (316), para. 6: 9 STC 208.
3. State of Madras v. India Coffee Board, AIR 1956 SC 631.
4. Mohiudeen Thamby & Co. v. State, AIR 1962 Mad 323 (325), para. 8.
5. Sunil Kumar Roy v. Commercial Tax Officer, (1959) 10 STC 14 (17) (Cal).