Judgment:
M.P. Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.
1. These two sales tax revision petitions are disposed of by this common order, as they are directed against the common order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, passed in S.T.A. Nos. 158 and 159 of 1984 on its file. The order of the Appellate Tribunal is dated 31st December, 1984.
2. The brief facts to be stated are as follows :
The assessee is a registered dealer, dealing in hides and skins, having his place of business at Saligrama in K. R. Nagar Taluk, Mysore District. He filed returns of his turnover for the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81 disclosing purchase turnover at Rs. 6,36,572.25 and sales turnover at Rs. 7,38,117.03. The sale was further classified as sales of hides and skins to local registered dealers against form No. 52 at Rs. 2,66,104.96, inter-State sales of hides and skins covered by C forms at Rs. 48,089.07 and export sales supported by H forms at Rs. 4,23,923; totally Rs. 7,38,117.03. For the year 1980-81, he showed similarly Rs. 3,48,914.50 as sales outside the State for export supported by H forms. In the first instance, the exemption claimed in respect of turnover on H forms came to be granted by the assessing authority. The matter was revised suo motu and remanded back to the assessing authority for consideration afresh in the light of the observations made by the revising authority and having regard to the material to be placed before the assessing authority by the assessee. In such reassessment on remand, it was discovered that the sale outside the State in favour of an exporter was really a sale covered by sub-section (4) of section 5 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 and did not attract the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Therefore, the exempted turnover under H forms was brought to tax as last purchase made in the State by the assessee at which point under the State Sales Tax Act, the transaction was exigible to tax. On appeal, the order of the assessing authority came to be confirmed. On a further appeal to the Tribunal, as we have observed earlier, the Tribunal did not interfere. Therefore, the present revision, formulating the following questions of law of our determination :
1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the purchases in question are not the purchases in the course of export
2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the purchases in question are not the purchases under the provisions of section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956
3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of the appellant, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the purchases are not exempted under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957
3. The last question does not fall for consideration, on the facts of the case. Therefore, we may deal with the second of the questions formulated above which covers the first question also.
4. The undisputed facts are : The assessee purchased hides and skins from local dealers in order to meet an order placed on him by an exporter in Tamil Nadu, who had his place of business at Ambur. In order to evidence that he sold the goods outside the State to an exporter, certain documents were presented which are even made as annexures to the petitions. They are a letter addressed to the assessee by the exporter at Ambur, requisitioning certain number of goat skins for purpose of export to Italy. He has also furnished a tabulated form supplied by the said exporter indicating the names of the foreign buyers and the orders which he has received from such buyers outside the country, the quantity, invoices, etc.
5. The hides and skins in Karnataka under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act is exigible to tax at the point of last purchase by a dealer within the State. That such last purchase in the State is the assessee is not in dispute. Nor is it disputed before us by Sri S. S. Angadi, appearing for Mr. B. V. Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. The thrust of the argument advanced before us is that sub-section (3) of section 5 of the Act uses the expression 'purchase' or 'sale' and, therefore, purchase made by the petitioner for the purposes of supplying it to the exporter must be construed as the last sale preceding the act of export and, therefore, the benefit of sub-section (3) of section 5 of the Act must be given. For that, reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Leather Facts Co. : [1987]2SCR630 . Undoubtedly, in interpreting sub-section (3) of section 5 of the Act, the Supreme Court has clearly stated that the sale preceding the movement of goods outside the country in favour of the exporter shall be deemed to be as sale in the course of export having regard to sub-section (3) of section 5 of the Act. What had happened in the case before the Supreme Court was that a hides and skins merchant had filed his claim for exemption in a particular form prescribed under the U.P. Sales Tax Rules, which was not the appropriate form for claiming such exemption. To demonstrate that it was the last sale in favour of the exporter preceding the act of exporting the goods outside the country, the Supreme Court was of the view that it was not the form that was important but the facts of the case. As long as it was established that it was the last sale or purchase in the course of export or deemed to be in the course of export in terms of sub-section (3) of section 5 of the Act, the benefit of exemption should be given to such an assessee.
7. The facts here are totally different. The petitioner is not an exporter. He is only a supplier to the exporter. He supplied goods at the request of the exporter which he has clearly evidenced. He has also evidenced that such supply was to the exporter by showing the exporter's account for the relevant year with his foreign buyers in the statement, which we have referred to earlier. Under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, the last sale by the assessee in favour of exporter outside the State is not exigible to tax. The point of levy, as noticed by us earlier, under the State Act is the last purchase made within the State by a dealer. Now that undisputedly is the petitioner. The petitioner not being the exporter, cannot claim that his purchase resulting in a sale in his favour is a purchase or sale which will be deemed to be in the course of export under sub-section (3) of section 5 of the Act, as he is not exporting the goods himself, but it is exigible under sub-section (4) of section 5 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. That view taken by the assessing authority and the Appellate Tribunal is correct and on the facts of the case, the question formulated does not fall to be answered.
8. The petitions are misconceived. They are dismissed.
9. Petitions dismissed.