STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. JOSHI JUTE CORPORATION
LAWS(CAL)-1995-6-5
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on June 28,1995

STATE OF WEST BENGAL Appellant
VERSUS
JOSHI JUTE CORPORATION Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. A AND G PROJECTS AND TECHNOLOGIES LTD [LAWS(KAR)-2007-8-65] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

RUMA PAL, J. - (1.)THE subject-matter of challenge in this writ application is the refusal of the respondent-authorities to issue declaration form in forms C, E-I and E-II under rule 27aa of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941 (referred to as "the Rules"), to the petitioners. The petitioners carry on business as jute merchants. According to the petitioners it had entered into a specific delivery contract through the East India Jute and Hessians Exchange Limited with M/s. Dalhousie Jute Company for purchase of ten bales of jute (referred to as "the goods" ). This purchase was made on October 17, 1992. On October 21, 1992, the petitioners issued shipping instructions to Dalhousie Jute Company to despatch the goods to Cochin through
(2.)ALL India Transport Corporation. On October 24, 1992, the Dalhousie Jute Company raised an invoice on the petitioners towards price of the goods. On November 18, 1992, the petitioners raised a bill on Jagannath Corporation, being the dealer in Kerala, in respect of the goods. The petitioners have also relied upon the consignee's copy of the consignment note which shows delivery of the goods from Calcutta to Kerala and a certificate issued by the mills concerned that delivery had been effected directly to the Kerala purchasers.
The petitioners applied for the issue of the required number of declaration forms to the Commercial Tax Officer, Radha Bazar, Calcutta. The Commercial Tax Officer made the issue of sales tax declaration forms subject to the petitioners making payment of a sum of Rs. 85,39,641. According to the Commercial Tax Officer this was the amount of tax which was leviable in respect of the transaction in question under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (referred to as "the 1956 Act" ). The Commercial Tax Officer did not accept the fact that the sale by the petitioners of the goods to Jagannath Corporation in Kerala was a subsequent sale within the meaning of section 6 (2) of the 1956 Act and was not entitled to an exemption as claimed by the petitioners but was subjected to tax at the rate of 4 per cent. This order of the Commercial Tax Officer, which is dated November 30, 1992, is the subject-matter of challenge in the writ petition.

(3.)The petitioners have contended that the petitioners had produced all documents showing that the sale was a subsequent sale within the meaning of section 6 (2) of the 1956 Act, entitling the petitioners to claim exemption. It is submitted that the conditional release of declaration forms directed by the Commercial Tax Officer was without jurisdiction. The petitioners have relied upon the decision of the Patna High Court in Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bihar, Patna v. Stare Trading Corporation of India Limited reported in [1972] 30 STC 451 to contend that the sale by Dalhousie Jute Company to the petitioners was a sale in course of inter-State trade and the subsequent sale by the petitioners to Jagannath Corporation was exempt from tax under section 6 (2) of the 1956 Act.
;


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