Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library

Report No. 30

7. Judgment by the Tribunal in the further appeal.- The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal on further appeal also held that the sale by the Appellants (assessee) to the Director-General of Supplies and Disposals had not occasioned the imports. The Tribunal found that "the "Appellants (Assessee) had entered into contracts for supply of axle box bodies with the Director-General of Supplies and Disposals, New Delhi, in order to fulfil these contracts, they had entered into further contracts with the manufacturers in Belgium.

The goods contracted to be supplied to the Government Departments were got manufactured by the Appellants (Assessee) in Belgium, imported into India, cleared at Madras Harbour and supplied to the buyers thereafter. There was no privity of contract between the Belgium manufacturers and the Government Departments.

The Belgian manufacturers after manufacture, consigned the goods to the Appellants (Assessee) by ship under bills of lading in which the Consignee was the Appellants themselves. The goods were consigned to the Madras Harbour, cleared by the Appellants' own clearing agents and despatched for delivery to the buyers (Southern Railway) thereafter1."

1. See paras. 1 and 3 of the Supreme Court Judgment. The findings of the Tribunal contained in the last two sentences are quoted in para. 1 of the Supreme Court judgment. See para. 4 of the common order dated 30-11-1961 in Tribunal Appeal Nos. 325 and 326 of 1961.

Section 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - Taxation by the States of Sales in the Course of Import Back

Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys