DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX Vs. PADINJAREKKARA RUBBER WORKS (P) LTD
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX
Padinjarekkara Rubber Works (P) Ltd
Click here to view full judgement.
K.S.PARIPOORNAN, J. -
(1.)THE Revenue is the petitioner in both the cases. The respondent -assessee is a private limited company. The
respondent is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963.
The respondent paid rubber cess to the Rubber Board. We are concerned
with the assessment years 1982 -83 and 1983 -84. The question in
controversy is whether the cess paid by the respondent -assessee to the
Rubber Board is includible in its purchase turnover. The Appellate
Tribunal held, for both the assessment years 1982 -83 and 1983 -84, that
the cess paid to the Rubber Board by the respondent -assessee cannot form
part of the purchase turnover of rubber by the assessee. In coming to the
said conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal followed the Full Bench decision
of this Court in Madras Rubber Factory Limited v. State of Kerala 
74 STC 56; (1989) 1 KLT 827. For the year 1983 -84, the assessee put forward a plea of deduction of Rs. 2,206 as sales return from the
turnover. The Appellate Tribunal held that the sales return was within
time and the Rules in that regard have been complied with. The assessee
was held entitled to deduction. Aggrieved by the common order passed for
the years 1982 -83 and 1983 -84 in T.A. Nos. 264 and 273 of 1989 dated
January 31, 1991, the Revenue has come up in revisions.
(2.)WE heard counsel for the Revenue, Mr. V. C. James, Senior Government Pleader.
It is conceded that in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Madras Rubber Factory's case  74 STC 56; (1989) 1 KLT 827,
cess paid by the respondent -assessee to the Rubber Board is not
includible in its purchase turnover. In this view, the Appellate Tribunal
was justified in directing the assessing authority to exclude the rubber
cess paid by the respondent -assessee from the turnover for both the years.
(3.)WITH regard to the deduction of Rs. 2,206 as sales return, the Appellate Tribunal held that the sales return was within time and it
happened to be in the next year only due to accidental circumstances and
beyond the control of the assessee. It was further held that the rule was
complied with. In these circumstances, the assessee was held entitled for
the deduction. We see no error in the said reasoning and conclusion. On
this ground, the deduction afforded for the year 1983 -84 was justified.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.