IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ST Rev No. 156 of 2003()
1. M/S. SURYA STONEWARE PIPES PVT. LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA.
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.BALACHANDRAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :22/10/2007
O R D E R
H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.T.SANKARAN, J.
--------------------------------------------------
S.T.Rev.Nos.156 of o2003, 172 of 2003
& 173 of 2003
-------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2007.
O R D E R
H.L.Dattu, C.J.
In all these revision petitions, a common question of law would
arise for our consideration and decision. Therefore, all these revision petitions
are clubbed, heard and disposed of by this common order.
(2). The petitioner is a dealer registered under the provisions of
the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act.
(3). In these tax revision cases, we are concerned with the
assessment years 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94.
(4). The assessee is a small scale industrial unit registered with
the Industries Centre, Kollam. It is engaged in the manufacturing of salt glaced
stoneware pipes, refractories, wirecut bricks and allied clay products.
(5). For the afore-said assessment years, the petitioner had
claimed exemption from payment of purchase tax, in view of the Notification
issued by the State Government in S.R.O.No.499/90. Initially, the assessing
authority had granted the exemption claimed by the petitioner from payment of
purchase tax.
(6). The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes exercising
his suo motu revisional powers has set aside the order of assessment passed by
the assessing authority and thereafter had remanded the matter to the
STRV.Nos.156,172,173/2003
-2-
assessing authority to redo the matter in accordance with law. The assessing
authority has passed a fresh assessment order denying the claim made by the
assessee from payment of purchase tax. Aggrieved by said order, the assessee
had unsuccessfully carried the matter before the first appellate authority and the
Tribunal.
(7). Being aggrieved by the orders so passed by the Tribunal, the
assessee is before us in these tax revision cases.
(8). The assessee has framed the following questions of law for our
consideration and decision:
“(i). Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case, and also in view of Annexure.A proceedings
is not the petitioner entitled to exemption under
section 5A of the Act on the purchase turnover of
goods used for the manufacture of products?
(ii). Whether there were materials for the appellate
tribunal to come to the conclusion that the raw
materials purchased and used for the manufacture of
goods are not entitled for exemption under SRO
499/90?
(iii). Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case, the appellate tribunal was justified in holding
that the petitioner cannot plead estoppel in view of
Annexure.A read with SRO.499/90?
STRV.Nos.156,172,173/2003
-3-
(9). In the instant case, admittedly, the Notification SRO.No.499/90
grants exemption in respect of the goods taxable at the last purchase point. The
petitioner is engaged in the manufacturing of salt glaced stoneware pipes,
refractories, wirecut bricks and allied clay products. The raw materials used by the
petitioner are clay and firewood taxable at the first sale point. Therefore, they
would not be entitled to have the benefit of the afore-said Notification.
(10). The issue in this regard is squarely covered by the decision of
the Apex Court in the case of State of Kerala Vs. Vattukalam Chemicals
Industries [ (2001) 124 STC 233 ]. In the said judgment, the Supreme Court
after noticing the Notification S.R.O.No.499/90, has stated as under:
“4. The respondent-assessee purchased copper
scrap for use in the manufacture of copper sulphate.
It is an admitted position that copper scrap is not
taxable at the point of last purchase in the State. On
the plain words of the notification, the exemption
given thereby is, therefore, not available to copper
scrap and, therefore, to the particular copper scrap
purchased by the assessee.”
(11). The facts in the instant case are identical with the facts stated
by the Apex Court in State of Kerala Vs. Vattukalam Chemicals Industries
[ (2001) 124 STC 233 ]. Therefore, following the principles laid down in the afore-
said decision, the questions of law framed by the assessee requires to be
STRV.Nos.156,172,173/2003
-4-
answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. Accordingly, we pass the
following:
O R D E R
(i). The Sales Tax Revision Petitions filed by the assessee
for the assessment years 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94 are rejected.
(ii). The questions of law framed by the assessee is
answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue.
(12). In view of the order passed in the revision petitions, all
pending interlocutory applications are dismissed.
Ordered accordingly.
(H.L.DATTU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(K.T.SANKARAN)
JUDGE
MS