SIEMENS INDIA LTD Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER BHOWANIPORE CHARGE
LAWS(CAL)-1976-6-24
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on June 14,1976

SIEMENS INDIA LTD Appellant
VERSUS
COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER BHOWANIPORE CHARGE Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

GOPINATHAN NAIR AND CO VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-1986-12-41] [REFERRED TO]
BATLIBOI AND COMPANY PVT LTD VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1981-2-3] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

SABYASACHI MUKHARJI,J. - (1.)THE petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. The petitioner has registered office at 134a, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Bombay.
(2.)THE petitioner is a registered dealer in West Bengal under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, and also under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The principals of the petitioner are Messrs. Siemens Aktiengesellschaft situated at Muenchen in West Germany. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner entered into contracts with the Indian Railways, Hindustan Steel Limited, Rourkela Steel Plant, and various other parties to supply }iterials from time to time as per orders placed by the aforesaid parties to the petitioner.
So far as the railway are concerned, the petitioner contends that under the terms of the contract, the railway were obliged to procure specific import licences against goods contracted for and under the terms of the contract, goods were to be manufactured in foreign country as per specifications given in those contracts. The goods were also, according to the petitioner, inspected by the representatives of the railways. The respective authorities had to carry out inspection at the works of the foreign supplier situated in West Germany and after such inspection the goods were stamped with Government marking and special certificates were given to the petitioner on the basis of which instalment payments were received. After these steps were completed, goods were shipped to the Indian Ports through the shipping agencies named by the petitioner and delivered to the consignees named by the railways and other licensees.

(3.)ACCORDING to the petitioner, final payments were received on final acceptance of the goods by the consignees. The petitioner stated that the obligation to procure import licence was of the railway and but for the discharge of the said obligation, which was done by procuring import licences, these contracts could not have been executed at all. The petitioner further states that the goods required by the railways were specific goods and were never kept in stock by the petitioner. In the case of supplies to customers, other than the railways, i. e. , Hindustan Steel Limited and others, actual user's licences were held by those parties with the letters of authority from the Import Controller in favour of the petitioner. Under the terms of the contracts, it was the responsibility of the customers to procure the actual user's import licences with the letters of authority in favour of the petitioner to enable the petitioner to import the goods and pay for the foreign exchange.
;


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