T.P. VARIATH Vs. THE BOARD OF REVENUE AND ANR.
LAWS(KER)-1955-7-27
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on July 15,1955

T.P. Variath Appellant
VERSUS
The Board of Revenue and Anr. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

M.S. Menon, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, a dealer who manufactures cocoanut oil and cake, was denied the deduction under Section 7(1)(k) of the Travancore General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, 1924, in respect of the first three months of 1125 (17th August, 1949 -15th November, 1949) on the ground that he was not a registered manufacturer during that period. By this petition he challenged the validity of that denial.
(2.) EXHIBIT I dated 15th November, 1949, is the application filed by the petitioner to the Assistant Sales Tax Commissioner, Parur, for obtaining registration under Rule 22: - As per Travancore General Sales Tax Act, 1124, Rule 22(1), I, Porunchu Variath, Proprietor, St. Joseph's Electrical Oil Mills, Parur, pray that I may be registered as a manufacturer of cocoanut oil and cake for this area for 1125, at your earliest convenience" and Exhibit II dated 31st March, 1950, the certificate granted to him : Certified that Sri Porunchu Variath, Proprietor, St. Joseph's Electrical Oil Mills, Parur, has been registered as manufacturer of cocoanut oil and cake under Rule 22(1) of the Travancore General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules. This certificate will be valid from 17th November, 1949, (the date of receipt of his application). The relevant portion of Exhibit A, the order of the Sales Tax Officer, Parur, dated 22nd October, 1953, reads as follows: - The dealer applied for registration as a manufacturer of cocoanut oil only on 17th November, 1949, and the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Alwaye, has registered him as such and issued a certificate on 31st March, 1950, (copy of which is kept in the file) specifically stating that the certificate would be valid only from 17th November, 1949, the date of application for registration. The party has not taken any steps to get retrospective effect for the certificate from 1 -1 -1125. The dealer can therefore be considered as a manufacturer of cocoanut oil, and rebate can be given with effect from only 17th November, 1949.
(3.) THE petitioner appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax, Ernakulam, against the said decision and in Exhibit B, his order dated 28th January, 1954, he has stated as follows : - Appellant was conducting an oil mill and was assessed to tax for 1125 after disallowing the claim for deduction under Rule 20(2) till the date of application for registration as a manufacturer of cocoanut oil and cake. The main contention is that the deduction claimed under Rule 20(2) was wrongly disallowed. The records were perused and the learned advocate was heard. It is strenuously argued that as the rules do not specify any date for application for registration under Rule 20, registration within the course of the assessment year should make the dealer, a person who is 'such manufacturer' as is referred to under Rule 20(2). This contention is apparently supported by a ruling of the Madras Sales Tax Tribunal. But it has to be noted that the obligation cast upon a manufacturer under Rule 20(3) can be discharged only if he is already registered under Rule 20(1). It follows that manufacturer should get registered under Rule 20(1) either within two months of the commencement of the business or within 31st May of the year for which deduction is claimed. In this case the application for registration was made only on 17th November, 1949, and the appellants' attempt to get registration with retrospective effect has failed before the Board of Revenue. The certificate has also been issued with effect only from 17th November, 1949. In these circumstances I do not find sufficient grounds to hold that deduction till 17th November, 1949, was wrongly refused. In the result this appeal fails and is therefore dismissed. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner was apparently labouring under some misapprehension as to the rules applicable to the case. He does not seem to have realised that the relevant provisions were those contained in the Travancore General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, 1124.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.