Kurian Abraham vs The State Of Kerala on 30 August, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

ST.Rev..No. 331 of 2006()


1. KURIAN ABRAHAM,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :DR.K.B.MOHAMMEDKUTTY (SR)

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN

 Dated :30/08/2010

 O R D E R
                                                                C.R.
                  C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, &
                     K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
                  --------------------------------------------
                       S. T. Rev. No. 331 of 2006
                  --------------------------------------------
                Dated this the 30th day of August, 2010

                                JUDGMENT

Ramachandran Nair, J.

Heard senior counsel Dr. K.B. Mohamedkutty appearing for the

petitioner and Government Pleader Sri. Mohammed Rafeeq appearing

for the respondent. The question raised is whether the Tribunal was

justified in holding that petitioner-assessee is liable to pay tax on the

last purchase of ginger which is exported in powdered form.

Exemption under Section 5(3) of the CST Act was declined for the

reason that the commodity purchased on which tax is payable at the

point of last purchase in the State under the KGST Act is not exported

in the same form. We notice from the order of the Tribunal that they

have only followed Full Bench decision of this Court in R. SURESH

KUMAR V. STATE OF KERALA, 13 KTR 70 which is in respect of

conversion of tamarind seed into tamarind seed powder which this

Court held amounts to manufacture. The Tribunal has also relied on the

STRV 331/2006 2

decision of the Supreme Court in RAJASTHAN ROLLER FLOUR

MILLS ASSN. V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN, 91 STC 408, wherein the

Supreme Court held that atta, maida, etc. are different commercial

products with different identity and use. It is also seen that Tribunal

has relied on decision of this Court in TATSON FOOD INDUSTRIES

V. STATE OF KERALA, (1999) 3 K.L.T. 174 (FB) wherein this Court

held that turmeric and turmeric powder are not the same goods. So

much so, the Tribunal has held that ginger powder is a manufactured

product obtained from ginger and therefore petitioner is liable to pay

tax on the ginger in terms of scheduled entry which provides for tax at

the point of last purchase in the State, no matter the assessee has

powdered and exported the ginger. Since the Tribunal decided the

issue based on several decisions of this Court and that of the Supreme

Court, which are squarely applicable to the facts of this case, we

dismiss the Sales Tax Revision Case.

(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)
Judge.

(K. SURENDRA MOHAN)
Judge.

kk

STRV 331/2006    3




kk