DEPUTY COMMISSIONER Vs. REJULA JOSPEH
LAWS(KER)-2003-6-66
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on June 13,2003

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER Appellant
VERSUS
REJULA JOSPEH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THE Deputy Commissioner (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam, is the revision petitioner in both these cases. THE respondent-assessee is also the same. THE assessment years concerned are 1990-91 and 1991-92 respectively. THE only question that arises for consideration in both these cases is as to whether crumb rubber/crumb rubber powder is an item liable to tax at the rate of 6 per cent under Entry 161 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act 1963, as it stood during the relevant assessment years. THE assessing authority has taken the view that the item crumb rubber (the contention of the assessee is that the item dealt with is crumb rubber powder) falls under item 161 of the First Schedule to the kerala General Sales Tax Act, as it stood at the relevant time, and therefore, liable to be taxed at the rate of 6 per cent. THE assessee's contention was that the item is liable to be assessed only at the rate of 5 per cent as an unclassified item. THE first appellate authority has found, on perusal of the accounts, that the item concerned was crumb rubber powder. THE assessee had also produced a photo copy of the Sales Tax Exemption Certificate issued to m/s. Venad Rubber Industries Estate, from whom the assessee had effected some purchase of the crumb rubber. THE Tribunal after referring to the relevant entry in the First Schedule Entry 161 (a) as it stood in the relevant time, held that even crumb rubber was excluded from the said entry. It was also observed that there is no other specific entry either in the First or Second Schedule of the Act during the relevant period. THE Tribunal has accordingly held that crumb rubber powder can be treated as a commodity coming under Entry 5 (1) (ii)of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, taxable at 5 per cent. We also find from a reading of the Entry 161 (a) of the First Schedule as it stood at the relevant time that crumb rubber and skinned rubber are specifically excluded from the said entry and there is no other entry in the First or the Second Schedule to the Act covering the said items. Though the assessee has got a case that crumb rubber and crumb rubber powder are one and the same, it is unnecessary for us to consider the said question, for the reason that even if crumb rubber powder is the same as crumb rubber, since crumb rubber is specifically excluded from entry 161 (a) of the First Schedule and in the absence of any other entry, it is liable to be assessed as an unclassified item at the rate of 5 per cent. In the above circumstances, we do not find any merit in these two revisions. THEy are accordingly dismissed. . .;


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