LexMIS. SARAF TRADING CORPORATION ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF KERALA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 1 S.C.R. 371 MIS. SARAF TRADING CORPORATION ETC. ETC. A v. STATE OF KERALA (Civil Appeal nos. 47 4-481 of 2011) JANUARY 13, 2011 B [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.] T Central Sales Tax Act, 1956: c s.5(3) - Sale in the course of export - Exemption from sales tax - Exporter of tea - Purchasing tea from tea planters - Claim for exemption - HELD: Though there is no agreement on record to indicate that the purchase was ·made for the purpose of export, but, there is a clear finding by the D assessing authority that the export documents indicated that the entire exports were effected pursuant to prior contract or prior orders of foreign buyers and, therefore, the claim for exemption was genuine - The appellate authority and the Appellate Tribunal having upheld the said finding of fact, it E would not be appropriate to reopen the same - Kera/a General Sa/es Tax Act, 1963. Kera/a General Sales Tax Act, 1963: s.44 - Refund - Exporters of tea - Claim for exemption F from sales tax found genuine - Claim for refund - Declined on the ground that refund can only be claimed by the dealer - HELD: All the authorities have clearly recorded a finding that it is only the dealer of the tea on whom the assessment has been made, who can claim refund of excess tax and since G ~· the exporter is not the dealer, and the tax collected from him has been remitted by the dealer to the Government, exporter cannot claim the refund ""'" The findings recorded by the authorities below are clearly findings of fact and have also been arrived at on the basis of the mandate of the provisions . 371 H 372 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 1 S.C.R. A of the State Act - Therefore, the decision does not call for any interference - In view of the facts of the case, doctrine of unjust enrichment is not attracted - Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - Doctrine of unjust enrichment. B The appellant-assessees, engaged in the business of export of tea, purchased tea from the tea planters directly in open auction and thereafter exported the same to foreign countries, and claimed exemption as exporter of the consignments on the ground that the purchase was -.,- c exempted u/s 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (CST Act). The assessing authority, allowed the claim in regard to the exemption. However, the claim for refund was rejected. The appeals filed by the assesses were dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) as also D by the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. Their revision petitions were also dismissed by the High Court. In the instant appeals filed by the assessees, the questions for consideration before the Court were: (i) whether the appellant-assessees would at all be entitled E to claim exemption u/s 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 as, at the time of sale, they could not allegedly show any evidence that it was the penultimate sale and (ii) whether in view of the provisions of s. 44 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, the appellant-assessees F would be entitled to refund of the tax, which was paid by them to the seller. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: G 1.1 In view of sub-s. (3) of s. 5 of the Central Sales ~ Tax Act, 1956, the last sale or purchase of any goods preceding the sale or purchase occasioning the export of those goods out of the territory of India shall also be H deemed to be in the course of such export, if such last SARAF TRADING CORPORATION ETC. v. STATE OF 373 KERA LA sale or purchase took place after, and was for the A purpose of complying with, the agreement or order for or in relation to such export. [para 15] [381-C-D] 1.2 It was held by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Azad Builders' case* that if it is clear that the local sale or purchase between the parties is inextricably B linked with the export of goods, then only a claim u/s 5(3) for exemption under the Sales Tax Act would be justified. [para 17] [383-F-G] *State of Karnataka Vs. Azad Coach Builders Pvt. Ltd. & c Anr 2010 (12) SCR 895 = 2010(9) SCALE 364 - followed. 1.3 It is true that in the instant case, there is no agreement available on record to indicate that the purchase was made for the purpose of export. In the D absence of the said document, it is not possible to ,lo.._ specifically state as to whether it was clear that the sale or purchase between the parties i.e. the dealer and the purchaser was inextricably linked wi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.