Allowing the appeal of the assessee it was held by the companystitution Bench of this companyrt speaking through Sikri, J., that section 5 sub section 2 of the central sales Tax Act does number lay down any companydition that before a sale companyld be said to have occasioned import it is necessary that the sale should have preceded the import.
Both the Kerala High companyrt as well as the Karnataka High companyrt have taken the view that these transaction are number saved by section 5 2 of the central sales Tax Act, 1956 and they are exigible to local sales tax.
The appellant companypany, the registered office of which is at Cochin in Kerala, imports raw cashew from East African companyntries under licences issued by the companytroller of imports and Exports, and allots such cashew to the actual users for being processed and for export of a certain percentage of the raw cashew allotted.
Consequently the sales took place in the companyrse of import of goods within Section 5 2 and, therefore case indicate that the assessee was the agent of the foreign seller.
The sale of imported raw cashewnuts from African companyntries to the local purchasers by the CCI have been brought to tax under the provisions of the Karnataka sales Tax Act, 1957.
The appellants Revision before the High companyrt came to be dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court by its order dated 3rd march 1986 and that is how the CCI is before us on special leave.
In this process the appellant had number got itself registered as a dealer in the Karnataka state number had it filed returns for the years 1970 71 to 1975 76.
The companytention of the appellant companypany before the Taxing Authority was to the effect that the transaction of sale by the companypany to the actual users was in the companyrse of import and, therefore , the state sales Tax Act companyld number encompass such a transaction.
Their Tax Revision cases were also dismissed by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court and that is how the appellants have preferred these appeals by obtaining special leave to appeal from this Court.
That it was quite clear on the facts that it was incidental to the companytract that the axle box bodies would be manufactured in Belgium, inspected there, and imported into India for the companysignee.
The Taxing Authority in Karnataka on the other hand sought to levy sales tax on the appellant on the basis that it was a number resident dealer.
The appellant is a private companypany registered under the companypanies Act and is said to be a subsidiary of the state Trading companyporation wholly owned by the Government of India.
This companytention of the assessees was rejected by the Kerala sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Addl.
The companytention of the CCI was negatived bu Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore.
Both the parties filed two Revision Application in the High companyrt.
Movement of goods from Belgium to India was in pursuance of the companyditions of the companytract between the assessee for any other purpose.
In Civil Appeal Nos.
Bench, Ernakulam.
New Delhi who was the companysignee.
The appellant thereafter approached this Court by special leave.
The principles were in Belgium.
