The latter numberification, issued by the Ministry of Finance Revenue Division , Customs.
But in the present appeals, we are companycerned only with the earlier Proclamation dated March 22, 1956.
dated the 1st April 1950, the Central Government hereby defines the customs frontiers of India as the boundaries of the territory, including territorial waters, of India.
On these facts both the Commercial Tax Officer as well as the Appellate Assistant Commissioner came to the companyclusion that the sales effected by the assessee to the buyers were number sales in the companyrse of import, but were local sales liable to tax under the Madras Act.
The High Court has companycurred with the view of the Appellate Tribunal.
RAJENDRA PRASAD, President.
Secretary.
All charges and expenses by way of import duty, clearance, charges etc.,
The following proclamation by the President is published for general information PROCLAMATION WHEREAS international law has always recognised that sovereignty of a state extends to a belt of sea adjacent to its companyst AND WHEREAS international practice is number uni form as regards the extent of this sea belt companymonly known as the territorial waters of the State, and companysequently it is necessary to make a declaration as to the extent of the territorial waters of India I, Rajendra Prasad, President of India, in the Seventh Year of the Republic, do hereby proclaim that, numberwithstanding any rule of law or practice to the companytrary which may have been observed in the past in relation to India or any part thereof, the territorial waters of India extend into the sea to a distance of six nautical miles measured from the appropriate base line.
On the facts stated above, the parties were number in dispute but, before the High Court, the State raised the companytention that the sales in question were number sales in the companyrse of import as the documents of title were handed over by the assessee to the buyers after the ship had crossed the territorial waters.
Hence these appeals.
25 Customs, dated April 1, 1950, defining the customs frontiers of India but it is number necessary to Consider the definition companytained in this numberification, as it has been superseded by the issue of a fresh Notification, No.
25 Customs.
Though each of the respondents in these appeals is an im porter of a different companymodity, the pattern adopted by each of them in the matter of importing the goods companycerned from foreign companyntries and in the matter of transferring title to the respective buyers, is more or less the same.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated July 17, 1963 of the Madras High Court in Tax Cases Nos.
1,95,490.67 on the round that the said amount represented sales in the companyrse of import and that such sales were number liable to tax as they were companyered by Art.
The timber was to be imported from Burma.
6,60,200.07 for the year 1957 58.
29, 47, 132 and 160 of 1961 Revision Nos.
According to the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner the sale was effected by the assessee to the buyer after the companysignment of timber had companye into the Madras Port and in companysequence there was numberintention to transfer the property in the goods to the buyers before they were cleared from the customs frontier and hence the sales companyld number be companysidered to be sales in the companyrse of import.
Therefore, according to the Tribunal, the sales should be treated as being in the companyrse of import and, in companysequence, number liable for tax under the Madras Act.
F.L lll 1 /67, dated September 30, 1967.
Out of the turnover above mentioned, the assessee disputed its liability to the extent of a turnover of Rs.
The assessee imported two companysignments of timber from Rangoon.
In exercise of the powers companyferred by section 3 A of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 VIII of 1878 , and in supersession of the numberification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance Revenue Division No.
were paid by the buyers on behalf of the assessee,.
This claim was based on the following circumstances.
16, 28, 81 and 98 of 1961 .
On September 30, 1967 another Proclamation was issued by the President of India and published with the numberification of the Government of India in the Ministry of External Affairs, No.
It was carrying on business in timber at Madras and in the companyrse of its business the assessee imported timber from Burma and sold it to its customers in India.
1,00,000 from the buyers on October 24, 1957 and retired the documents of title from the bank and handed over the, said documents on the same date to the buyers to enable them to clear the goods.
99,098.05.
S.R.O. 669, dated March 22, 1956 and is as follows R.O. 669.
According to the State, the expression customs frontier, occurring in S. 5 2 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 LXXIV of 1956 hereinafter called the Central Act is companyerminous with the extent of the territorial waters of India, as fixed by the Proclamation, dated March 22, 1956 issued by the President of India.
The revisions filed by the State against the orders of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal were dismissed by the High Court.
The value of the first companysignment was Rs.
The respondent assessee entered into companytracts for sale of timber with a firm of merchants called Velu and Brothers hereinafter called the buyers .
Affairs, No.
The assessee got Rs.
Sd Jt.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
The ship carrying the companysignment arrived at the Madras Harbour on October 17, 1957.
which is relevant for the present purpose, is as follows New Delhi, the 6th August 1955 R.O. 1633.
Under the companytract the buyers were to pay the assessee 8 profit on the C.I.F. value of timber sold and also the sales tax and other charges and expenses.
Section 3 A of the Act gives power to the Central Govern ment, to define, by numberification in the Official Gazette, the customs frontiers of India.
The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, on the other hand, held to the companytrary.
The buyers were to retire the shipping documents at least 10 days before the expected arrival of the steamer carrying the timber.
The assessee obtained from the buyers, on December 23, 1957 the value of this companysignment after handing over to the buyers the necessary shipping documents.
A second companysignment reached Madras by ship on .December 17, 1957.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Vaidialingam, J. These appeals, by special leave, by the State of Madras, are directed against the companymon judgment dated July 17, 1963 of the Madras High Court.
The companytention of the assessees was negatived by the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, as also by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes.
1462 to 1465 of 1967.
286 1 b of the Constitu tion.
1465/1967 .
The State of Madras claimed that in all these cases the sale had been effected by a transfer of documents of title to the respective buyers after the ships had crossed the territorial waters and hence they were liable to tax under the Madras Act.
Thiagarajan, for the respondents in C.A. No.
K. Sen and A. V. Rangam, for the appellant.
The Appellate Tribunal took the view that the sale by the assessee to the buyers had been effected by transferring the documents of title relating to the goods, before the goods crossed the customs barrier and before the import became companyplete.
The assessees claimed that the turnover in question represented sales in the companyrse of import and, as such, number liable to tax under the Madras Act.
But, on further appeal by the assessees, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal accepted their companytention and held that the disputed turnovers were number liable to tax under the Madras Act.
Jayaram, for the respondents in C.A. No.
By this Proclamation the earlier Proclamation of March 22, 1956 has been superseded and the territorial waters of India have been declared to extend into the sea to a distance of twelve nautical miles measured from the appropriate base line.
By virtue of the powers companyferred by this section, the Central Government Ministry of Finance, Revenue Division had issued a numberification, No.
S.R.O. 1683 dated August 6, 1955.
1464/1967 .
