IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ST Rev No. 280 of 2004()
1. THOMAS MICHAEL, MANARKATTU HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SMT.S.K.DEVI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :15/10/2007
O R D E R
H.L.Dattu,C.J. & K.T.Sankaran,J.
----------------------------------------------
S.T.Rev.No.280 of 2004
----------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 15th day of October, 2007
ORDER
H.L.Dattu,C.J.
The orders passed by the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Additional Bench, Kottayam in T.A.No.275 of 1999 dated 26th June, 2001 is the
subject matter of the revision petition filed by the assessee under Section 41 of
the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (“Act” for short).
(2) The assessment year in question is 1992-93. The assessee is
a second seller of arrack.
(3) The assessing authority has computed the tax liability of the
petitioner by her orders dated 31.3.1998. The said assessment orders are
confirmed by both the first appellate authority as well as the Tribunal.
(4) When the assessing authority has passed the orders of
assessment for the assessment year 1992-93 dated 31.3.1998, she did not have
the advantage of the orders passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case
of M/s.Aiswarya Traders, Mavelikara v. The Sales Tax Officer, Mavelikara &
others, W.A.No.1374 of 1998 dated 30th June, 2005, nor the Tribunal had the
advantage of the aforesaid order.
(5) In the aforesaid decision, a Bench of this Court at paragraph 9
has observed as under:
“We find it difficult to accept the interpretation given by the learned
single Judge. The apex court in Polestar Electronic (P) Ltd. v.
Addl.Commr., 1978 (41) STC 409 held that a statutory enactment
must ordinarily be construed according to the plain natural meaning
of its language and no words should be added, altered or modified
unless it is plainly necessary to do so in order to prevent a
S.T.Rev.No.280 of 2004. 2
provision from being unintelligible, absurd, unreasonable,
unworkable or totally irreconcilable with the rest of the statute. This
rule of literal construction is firmly established and it has received
judicial recognition in numerous cases. A Full Bench of this Court
in Kurian Abraham (P) Ltd. v. Asst. Commissioner, 2004 (1) KLT
498 (FB) held that the provisions of a taxing statute have to be
construed strictly. A person cannot be taxed unless the provisions
clearly provides for it. The words of the statute or the relevant entry
have to be given their true and natural meaning. The authority
cannot add to the words. It cannot impose a levy by reading an
implication into the plain words of the provision. There is no room
for intendment. The words of the statute cannot be strained. Strict
letter of law has to be seen. While interpreting sub-section (14) of
section 7 we cannot strain the language or read the words “tax
paid” as “tax payable”. What is intended by the Legislature is all
that the Government shall receive 20% of the rental amount in total
as tax on sale of arrack. That is the reason why the tax paid on the
purchase of arrack at the first sale point is ordered to be deducted
so that the total tax received would become 20% of the rental
amount. When we interpret the above quoted provision it is evident
that the rate of tax applicable to an unregistered dealer is 62.5%.
Assessee’s case is that he had paid tax at that rate. If that be so, in
our view, the claim raised by the assessee is justifiable”.
(6) In view of the orders passed by the Division Bench in the
aforesaid decision, we cannot sustain the orders passed by the assessing
authority, first appellate authority as well as the Tribunal. Therefore, we make the
following:
Order
(i) The orders passed by the assessing authority dated 31.3.1998, the
first appellate authority dated 7.6.1999 and the Tribunal dated 26.6.2001 are set
aside.
S.T.Rev.No.280 of 2004. 3
(ii) Now the matter is remanded to the assessing authority to recompute
the tax liability of the petitioner-assessee in accordance with law keeping in view
the observations made by a Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid decision.
(iii) This exercise, the assessing authority shall complete within a period of
three months from today.
(iv) After completion of the assessment proceedings, the assessing
authority shall issue revised demand notice to the petitioner-assessee.
Ordered accordingly.
H.L.Dattu
Chief Justice
K.T.Sankaran
Judge
vku/-