- (1.) This petition has been filed under section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 read with section 42(2) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 seeking direction to the Haryana Tax Tribunal to refer for opinion of this court following questions of law: (i) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the sale of bus bodies by the respondent to the exporter of passenger buses qualifies for exemption under section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956? (ii) Whether, on true and correct interpretation of the provision of section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the supply of bus bodies by the respondent to the exporter of passenger buses could be legally held to be 'for the purpose of compliance with the agreement or order for or in relation to export' of passenger buses? (iii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in ignoring the apex court judgments in casesTVL K A K ANWAR AND CO v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, 1998 108 STC 258 in case of K.A.K. Anwar & Co. v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1986 63 STC 239 in Sterling Foods v. State of Karnataka and Vijayalaxmi Cashew Company v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, 1996 100 STC 571 that was quoted and relied upon by the revisional authority in his order dated February 25, 2002? (iv) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in deciding the appeal exclusively relying upon the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Azad Coach Builders Pvt. Limited v. State of Karnataka,2001 123 STC 473 cited before it on behalf of the appeal and absolutely without considering the decision in L. G. Balakrishnan Brothers Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2001 123 STC 508 cited before it on the behalf of the State? (v) Whether the Tribunal has failed to follow the judgment of the honourable Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of Hari Om Industry v. State of Haryana, 2001 123 STC 155 wherein it has been held by the honourable High Court that the Sales Tax Tribunal, Haryana, can take different view on merits in another year of the same assessee? (vi) Whether the Tribunal was justified in brushing aside the reliance on judgments in K.A.K. Anwar & Co. v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1998 108 STC 258 and Srinivas Leather Private Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2000 119 STC 369 without assigning any reason? The assessee executed the work of fabrication for the exporter M/s. DCM Daewoo Motors (India) Ltd., Ghaziabad, U.P. and claimed exemption in respect of the said turnover under section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, which was allowed by the Assessing Authority. However, the revisional authority exercised suo motu jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the assessment on the ground that penultimate transaction preceding the export could not be held to be in the course of export. On appeal, the Tribunal set aside the view taken by the revisional authority as under: We have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have also seen the facts on record. We have also gone through the judgments relied upon by rival parties carefully. After perusal of the record, we do not agree with the contention of the State Representative that the Assessing Authority had allowed exemption with respect to sale of bus bodies without obtaining the information required under col. 5 of form H. The Assessing Authority in its order dated April 7, 1998, has clearly stated that the assessee had adduced documentary evidence, i.e., H form in support of his claim which are placed on the file after verification duly supported with purchase orders. This is a clear finding of fact recorded by the Assessing Authority which is based on evidence. We do not find any reason to differ with the finding of the Assessing Authority. No weight can be attached to this submission raised by the State Representative. As regards the question 'whether the transaction in question is covered by section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act. Or not.'? The case is fully covered by the judgment of honourable Karnataka High Court passed in the case of Azad Coach Builders Pvt. Limited v. State of Karnataka,2001 123 STC 473 where it has clearly been held that (page 487 in 123 STC): In the present matter it is not even the case of implied contract but of the specific contract which has been entered into by the exporter with the foreign buyer to export the "bus" having the "chassis" and "body" of definite specification and thus all the conditions of section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act have been fulfilled. It is not in dispute that at the time when the orders were placed to the petitioner by the exporter, the exporter had the pending orders with him and that the purchase from the petitioner was for the purpose of complying with the agreement or order for or in relation to such export. The "agreement" or "order" has reference to those goods which are actually exported out of the country. The words "in relation to such export" extend the scope of the exemption to the extent that even if there is no agreement or order but they are in relation to such export, the exemption can still be claimed. This would cover not only the packing material, but all other such sales which are made to the exporter for which by implication it could be considered that there was an agreement or order in respect thereof. According to our considered view, so long as there is sale of both the items to constitute them as a complete item, the benefit cannot be denied. This view has also been taken by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Haryana in the case of the appellant itself for the assessment year 1997-98 in STA No. 779 of 2001- 2002 and also by the Haryana Tax Tribunal in STA No. 508 of 2002-2003 in case of M/s. Paras Mechanical Industry, Faridabad. Following the ratio of these judgments, we feel that the present case be also decided accordingly and consequently the present appeal is allowed. The order of the revisional authority is quashed and that of the Assessing Authority is restored.
(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to dispute that against earlier order of the Tribunal, which has been followed in the present case, the State did not take any remedy. He is also unable to dispute the applicability of the said judgment. His only contention is that the goods covered by the transaction penultimate to export should be of the same goods which are exported. There is no merit in the submission. In the present case, it has been specifically held by the Assessing Authority as well as by the Tribunal that the assessee had produced the relevant information in prescribed form in support of its claim. Once transaction between the assessee and the exporter was integrated to the export, section 5(3) was rightly held to be attracted following the view taken by the Karnataka High Court. The view taken by the Karnataka High Court, relied upon by the Tribunal stands affirmed by the honourable Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Azad Coach Builders Pvt. Ltd., 2010 9 SCC 524.;