Composite appellate orders need proper revision, while purchases from unregistered dealers can attract purchase tax on factual proof.

A revision challenging a composite appellate order must address the entire order, and failure to file revisions and court fee in the manner required can render the revision not maintainable. On taxability, purchases of empty gunnies from unregistered dealers were held liable to purchase tax under section 5A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 because the assessee failed to produce reliable evidence of purchases from registered dealers or to support the stock position, and the factual finding that the consignments came from unregistered dealers was accepted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a revision challenging a composite appellate order required separate revisions and separate court fee, and whether failure to do so affected maintainability; (ii) Whether purchases of empty gunnies from unregistered dealers were liable to purchase tax under section 5A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963.

Issue (i): Whether a revision challenging a composite appellate order required separate revisions and separate court fee, and whether failure to do so affected maintainability.

Analysis: The composite order under revision arose out of two separate appeals. The objection was that at least two revisions and corresponding court fee were necessary, and that a revision directed only against one part of the composite order would be incompetent. The defect was treated as going to maintainability.

Conclusion: The revision was not maintainable on this ground.

Issue (ii): Whether purchases of empty gunnies from unregistered dealers were liable to purchase tax under section 5A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963.

Analysis: The finding of the appellate tribunal was that the assessee failed to produce evidence to prove purchases from registered dealers, failed to substantiate the stock position, and the figures supplied were unsupported. The factual finding was that the consignment despatches were sourced from unregistered dealers, and the contrary view of the first appellate authority was rejected as unsupported by sound data.

Conclusion: The purchases were exigible to purchase tax under section 5A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963.

Final Conclusion: The revision suffered from a maintainability defect and, in any event, the tribunal's factual finding on taxability called for no interference, so the assessee obtained no relief.

Ratio Decidendi: In revision, a factual finding that purchases were from unregistered dealers and unsupported by evidence will sustain levy of purchase tax, and a composite appellate order must be challenged in a manner that answers the entire order to remain maintainable.

---