Bharati Sapru, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Standing Counsel for the revisionist -State Sri B.K. Pandey and Sri N.C. Gupta for the assessee.
(2.) THIS revision has been filed against the judgment and order of the Tribunal dated July 5, 1996 by which the Tribunal has granted exemptions on export sales to the assessee for the assessment year 1991 -92. The questions sought to be referred are as under: 1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the Tribunal was legally justified to set aside the order of the assessing authority which was confirmed by a legal order of the first appellate authority ? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the Trade Tax Tribunal was legally justified to allow the dealer's claim for exemption of export sales of Rs. 1,26,935 as against law declared by the honourable Supreme Court in the case of State of Travancore -Cochin v. Bombay Company Ltd., [1952] 3 STC 434? The facts of the case are that the dealer is a manufacturer and seller of insecticides. For the assessment year 1991 -92, the assessing authority accepted the books of account of the dealer but disallowed the dealer's claim for exemption of sale of insecticides of Rs. 1,26,935 which had been exported outside the territory of India to a dealer in Nepal, according to the assessee.
(3.) THE assessing authority levied tax on the sales made by the dealer for Rs. 1,26,935 treating it to be intra -State sales in view of the fact that the dealer failed to produce before the assessing authority a copy of order or agreement made with the foreign buyer in Nepal. No other document was also produced by the dealer to establish that he had exported the goods to a dealer in Nepal. The goods were shown to have been transacted in cash. The dealer on his part produced before the assessing authority concerned three custom clearance certificates issued by the custom authorities of Nepal. The assessing authority however did not accept these custom clearance certificates to be sufficient to establish that the sales had been made by the assessee in the course of export to Nepal. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the dealer filed a first appeal under Section 9 of the Act. The first appeal was disallowed and the order of the assessing authority was confirmed by the order of the first appellate authority dated August 5, 1993.;