IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
TRC No. 120 of 2000()
1. COCHIN MALABAR ESTATES & INDUSTRIES LTD.
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.JOSE JOSEPH
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :08/08/2007
O R D E R
H.L. DATTU, C.J. & K.T. SANKARAN, J.
..................................................................................
T.R.C. Nos. 116, 120, 121,122 AND 123 OF 2000
...................................................................................
Dated this the 8th August , 2007
O R D E R
H.L. Dattu, C.J.:
These Tax Revisions Cases arise under the provisions of the Central
Sales Tax Act. In all these Revision Petitions, the assessee is common and
the revisional authority as well as the Tribunal have also disposed of the
matters by a common order. Therefore, all these Revision Petitions are
clubbed together, heard and disposed of by a common order.
2. The assessment proceedings are under the provisions of the
Central Sales Tax Actfor the assessment years 1988-89 to 1992-93.
3. The facts in brief are:- The petitioner is a plantation company . It is
registered both under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act 1963
(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act 1963’ ) and the provisions of the Central Sales
Tax Act 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act 1956’). The Petitioner/Company
has effected inter-state sales of raw rubber produced/manufactured in their
industrial unit. The assessing authority – the Assistant Commissioner
(Assessment), Special Circle (Produce), Mattancherry has completed the
assessment proceedings under the provisions of the Act by taking into
account the aggregate of sale price received and receivable by the petitioner in
respect of interstate sales and has levied tax on the said transaction.
T.R.C. Nos. 116, 120, 121,122 AND 123 OF 2000
2
Subsequently, the orders of assessment so passed were re-opened by the
revisional authority by invoking his powers under section 35 of the Act, 1963 ,
on the ground that element of cess under Rubber Act, 1947 has not been
included in the sale price resulting in escapement of turnover in view of the
law declared by the Apex Court in State of Kerala vs. Madras Rubber
Factory Ltd.( [1998] 108 STC 583). The order so passed by the revisional
authority was the subject matter of the appeals before the Tribunal in
T.A.Nos.1122 to 1126 of 1999. The Tribunal has rejected the appeals, by its
order dated 20.11.1999. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Tribunal, the
assessee is before us in these Tax Revision Cases, filed under section 41 of
the Act, 1963.
4. The assessee has raised the following question of law for our
consideration and decision; they are as under:
“i) Whether the Deputy Commissioner is competent to
revise any assessment order passed under the Central Salestax
Act invoking Section 35 of the K.G.S.T. Act in the absence of
any provision in the C.S.T.Act conferring revisional jurisdiction.?
ii) Whether on a proper and correct interpretation of Section
9(2) of the C.S.T. Act and Rules 6(7) and 6(8) of the CST
(Kerala)Rules, the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of the
powers under Section 35 of the K.G.S.T.Act has any authority or
power to direct the Assessing Authority to assess any escaped
turnover under the CST Act after the period of limitation