Case: State of Punjab (Now Haryana) &amp; Another Vs. M/s. New Rajasthan Mineral Syndicate

2. The relevant assessment years are0. The assessee, the New Rajasthan Mineral Syndicate is registered as a dealer under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. It is not registered under the Central Sales Act, 1956, (for short called the Act). The assessee carries on the business of quarry contractors. In the relevant years, it held a licence from the then Punjab State to quarry iron ore at Nizampur, District Mohindergarh.3. During the assessment year in question, theOfficer assessed theto tax under Section 9 of the Act on a turnover of Rs. 3,18,757/6, Rs. 3,99,948/93 and Rs. 5 lakhs, respectively. The last assessment was made on the best judgment basis.4. To impugn these assessment orders, the assessee filed three writ petitions in the High Court of Punjab under Art. 226 of the Constitution. It was averred in the petitions that the export ofhad been nationalised by the Central Government and no such export could be made by any private dealer like the assessee.The Government of India had authorised like the State Trading Corporation (to be hereinafter referred to as S.T.C.) as the sole authority for the purpose of exportingto other countries, including Japan. The S.T.C. had further nominated Sri Narayan and Co. (to be called for short N and Co.,) to procure thefor the purpose of export. N and Co. accordingly entered into agreements with the assessee firm for procuring thefrom the assessee. Excepting the quantity to be supplied, the basic terms of the agreements were the same.The learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the assessment orders with holding that "the petitioner was engaged in the export of the iron ore to Japan through the S.T.C. which in turn, for its facility, had appointed N. and Co. a broker and that at no point of time the property in goods passed either to N. and Co., or to S.T.C."8. The Letters Patent Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the Revenue.

Reasoning:
23. The above observations, reproduced in extenso, furnish a complete and effective answer to all the arguments advanced on behalf of the assessee, in the instant case, to support the judgment of the High Court. Indeed, the factual premises on which Mr. Sharmas contentions are based, are weaker and less favourable to the assessee than those in Serajuddins case (AIR 1975 SC1564) (supra). Here there is no direct agreement between the assessee and the S.T.C, the agreement is between the assessee and N. and Co. Here is thus room for argument that the export sale made by the S.T.C. to the foreign buyers was preceded by two separate sales, namely, the first made by the assessee to N and Co. and the second made by N and Co, to S.T.C. Further, in the case before us, the assessee was entitled to payment even before ship ment, if the goods were weighed and approved by ,S.T.C. at Kandla Port.24. Be that as it may, the basic features of the case in hand are the same as those in ,Serajuddins case (AIR1975 SC 1564) (supra). Respectfully following the ratio and reasoning of this Court in the above quoted observations in Serajuddins case by which we are bound we accept the contentions canvassed on behalf of the appellant and negative those advanced by the assessee.