English Shorthand Dictation “Deal with Export of Goods” 80 and 100 wpm Legal Matters Dictation 500 Words with Outlines meaning.

English Shorthand Dictation “Deal with Export of Goods” 80 and 100 wpm

Clauses (1) and (3) deal with export of goods. Clause (2) deals with the import of goods. In the present case, we are only concerned 25 with the export. Thus, Clause (2) is not relevant. Clause (1) covers the purchase of goods which occasions the export. In other words, the sale 50 by the exporter or the purchase by the foreign buyer is covered. Clause (3) deals with the sale or purchase preceding the export. In other words, the purchase by the exporter is fictionally treated as being in the course of export.

What is the position in the present – case? The petitioner is a miller. It buys paddy from the commission agent for milling. Having processed it, the petitioner sells rice to the exporter. Then the exporter sells the rice to the foreign buyer. Clause (1) exempts the sale by the exporter to the foreign buyer. Clause (3) which was introduced 150 in the year 1976 exempts the penultimate sale which occasions the export viz. the sale of rice by the miller to the exporter or the 175 purchase by the exporter from the miller. However, the sale of paddy by the commission agent to the petitioner is not covered by any of 200 the provisions of Section5.

Mr. Sarin contended that such an interpretation would completely defeat the object of the Parliament in introducing clause (ca) in Section 225 15. Is it so?

On August 17, 1995, a Full Bench of the High Court decided the case of United Rice Land Limited and250 another vs. the State of Haryana and others, (supra). It was inter alia held that paddy and rice are declared goods under Section 14 of275 the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. These are two different commodities subject to tax under Section 6 read with Sections 15-A and 17 of the 300 Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973. Thus, dealers were held liable to pay purchase tax on paddy which is dehusked and exported out of India 325 as rice. It deserves notice that the petitioners viz. United Riceland Ltd. and others were “admittedly exporters of rice outside India”. They purchased “paddy from 350 the States of Punjab and Haryana for the purposes of dehusking it for export of rice outside India,” thus, they were held liable to pay $75 purchase tax on paddy. The result was that on account of paddy and rice being two different commodities, even the exporter of rice was liable 400 to pay tax on the purchase of paddy. In other words, it got no benefit under Section 5(3) of the Central Act. To alleviate this 425 hardship, the Parliament introduced Clause (ca) and provided that for the transaction covered by clause (3), paddy and rice shall be treated as a single commodity. Nothing more. As a result, a miller who purchases paddy and sells rice to the foreign buyer, is exempted from payment of purchases tax. However, in case, the miller only sells it to a mediator viz. the exporter, the transaction of purchase of paddy by the miller is not 500 covered under Clause (3). (Words 504)