I.E. IMPEX (P.) LTD. Vs. SALES TAX OFFICER, BHOWANIPUR CHARGE AND OTHERS
LAWS(ST)-2010-7-8
SALES TAX TRIBUNAL
Decided on July 02,2010

I.E. Impex (P.) Ltd. Appellant
VERSUS
Sales Tax Officer, Bhowanipur Charge And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

DEB KUMAR CHAKRABORTI, J. - (1.) BY this application under section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act 1987, the petitioner, M/s. I.E. Impex (P) Ltd., a company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at 2, Motilal Nehru Road, Kolkata 700 019, has assailed the order dated May 27, 2008 passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Bhowanipur Charge, rejecting the application for issuing declarations in form 12A and subsequent revisional order dated August 25, 2009 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax, Kolkata (South) Circle, confirming the impugned order dated May 27, 2008. Mr. S.K. Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner purchased goods from registered dealers in West Bengal for the purpose of exports of the same goods after the purchase order is received from the foreign buyers. It has been claimed by the learned advocate that although the purchases are made by the petitioner after receipt of the order from foreign buyers but sometimes it used to raise invoice on the foreign buyers prior to purchase from the said registered dealers for the purpose of obtaining letter of credit from the bank and bill of lading from the customs authorities at an early date so that after purchase from the said registered dealers goods can be immediately exported to outside India as per time fixed by the foreign buyers in their purchase orders. Learned advocate has claimed that the said procedures as stated hereinbefore had followed by the petitioner on many occasions and respondent No. 1 on all occasions issued declarations in form 12A after being satisfied that the goods were purchased after receipt of the order from the foreign buyers, but for the first time on May 21, 2008, when an application was filed for issue of declaration in form 12A, respondents No. 1 rejected the application on May 22, 2008 on the ground that the sale invoice was raised on the foreign buyer prior to the date of purchase of goods from the local registered dealer and being aggrieved the petitioner filed a revision application before respondent No. 2 who by his order dated August 25, 2009 confirmed the order of respondent No. 1 accepting the said ground.
(2.) The learned advocate has further submitted that for the purpose of obtaining form 12A, as per law the dealer exporting the goods to the foreign parties, was required to prove that the goods were purchased from registered dealers in West Bengal after receipt of the order from the foreign buyers and on fulfillment of such condition the dealer was entitled to get the declaration in form 12A. Learned advocate has claimed that in the instant case the purchases were made in West Bengal after receipt of the orders from the foreign buyers. As such, it is argued that the conditions required to fulfil for obtaining declaration in form 12A was complied with and the petitioner was entitled to get declaration in form 12A. Learned advocate has assailed the ground of rejection assigned in the order that invoice was raised on foreign buyer prior to purchase of the goods from the registered dealer in West Bengal and has claimed that this is not valid ground for refusing to issue declaration in form 12A. Learned advocate has cited the decisions reported in Consolidated Coffee Ltd. v. Coffee Board, Bangalore : [1980] 46 STC 164 (SC), Mica Trading Corporation of India Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh : [1996] 100 STC 142 (AP) and Manorama Madhvaraj v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, [1999] 113 STC 86 (Karn).
(3.) THE petitioner filed an supplementary affidavit on May 10, 2010, enclosing xerox copy of purchase orders received from the foreign buyers, copy of purchase vouchers issued by the local registered dealers, challans, export invoices, shipping bills, etc. In the said supplementary affidavit the petitioner has claimed that in the regular course of business the petitioner used to receive the orders for supply of goods from the foreign buyers through fax, telephonic conversation and also through e -mail. After the said order is received the petitioner used to send pro forma invoice to the said foreign buyer quoting the price of the goods for his approval. In return the foreign party used to send the pro forma invoice back to the petitioner according his acceptance to purchase the goods at the price quoted in the pro forma invoice. After receiving the acceptance from the foreign party, the petitioner used to purchase goods from the local sellers for sending the goods to the foreign buyers through ship, air, etc.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.