STO SPECIAL CIRCLE ERNAKULAM Vs. D C JOHAR AND SONS P LTD
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
STO, SPECIAL CIRCLE, ERNAKULAM
D. C. JOHAR,D. C. JOHAR AND SONS (P) LTD.
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Writ Appeal 127 of 1967 arises out of O. P. 1298 of 1966, while Writ Appeals 204 and 208 of 1967 arise out of O. P. 3267 of 1966. The two Original Petitions were filed by Messrs. D. C. Johar & Sons (P) Ltd., Ernakulam, hereinafter referred to as the assessee, to quash certain orders assessing them to sales tax. Exts. P2, P3 and P4 are the orders of assessment for the years 1962-63, 1963-64 and 1964-65. The assessee filed appeals against Exts. P2 to P4, and the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is Ext. P5 in O. P. 3267 of 1966. The exemption claimed by the assessee in respect of the turnover of the sale of beer purchased from McDowell & Co., Shertallai, and the freight paid for purchasing the goods, was disallowed by the assessing authorities. In O. P. 1298 of 1966 the assessee prayed for the quashing of the order of assessment for the year 1964-65 which was also sought to be quashed in O. P. 3267 of 1966. In O. P. 1298 of 1966 the claim of the assessee was similar to that in O. P. 3267 of 1966. O. P. 1298 of 1956 was disposed of on 3-3-1967, while O. P. 3267 of 1966 was disposed of on 18-7-1967. The result of the orders in the Original Petitions is to quash Exts. P2 to P4 and P5 in so far as the turnover in respect of the sale of beer purchased from McDowell and Co. Ltd., Shertallai. The claim for exemption made by the assessee in respect of the freight and surcharge was disallowed in both the Original Petitions. Writ Appeals 127 and 204 of 1967 are filed by the State against the orders in both the Original Petitions, while Writ Appeal 208 or 1967 is filed by the assessee against the order in O. P. 3267 of 1966.
(2.) In the appeals filed by the State the question relates to the claim of the assessee for exemption of the turnover on account of the sales of beer purchased from McDowell & Co. Ltd., Shertallai. In view of our decision on an identical question in Writ Appeal No. 29 of 1967, we have to uphold the claim for exemption and agree with the decision of the learned Single Judge. The appeals are therefore devoid of merit.
(3.) In Writ Appeal 208 of 1967 the only point to be decided is whether the claim for deduction in respect of the freight paid by the appellant to his sellers is sustainable. A similar claim by the same assesses for the year 1964-65 was disallowed in O. P. 1298 of 1966 by Govindan Nair, J. observing thus:
"The petitioner has raised a further point. This relates to the exemption from the turnover of the freight said to have been paid by the petitioner in regard to commodities purchased by him and resold. The amount paid towards freight by the petitioner to his seller cannot be an item of deduction in relation to the price obtained by him in the sales effected by him. This is so, even though he has shown the freight to his seller separately in the bills that he has issued in relation to his sales.";
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.