Commodity-specific turnover-tax notifications override general agent exemptions for rubber purchases, requiring assessment under the special rubber scheme.

Where rubber purchases are governed by commodity-specific turnover-tax notifications, a general exemption for auctioneers and commission agents does not control the tax incidence. The assessee, purchasing rubber in Kerala for outside-State principals, could not rely on S.R.O. No. 1341 of 1987; liability and exemption had to be tested only under S.R.O. Nos. 715 and 716 of 1988, including the prescribed declaration requirement. The arrangement through agents did not alter the co-extensive liability of principal and agent. The Tribunal's orders were set aside and the matters remanded for fresh consideration under the correct rubber notifications.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee, acting as buying agents for outside-State principals and purchasing rubber in Kerala, could claim exemption from turnover tax under S.R.O. No. 1341 of 1987, and whether the liability and any exemption had instead to be examined with reference to the rubber-specific notifications S.R.O. Nos. 715 and 716 of 1988.

Analysis: The turnover tax exemption in S.R.O. No. 1341 of 1987 was a general notification for auctioneers, commission agents and other mercantile agents, and was not intended to determine the incidence of turnover tax on any particular commodity. Rubber was governed by separate notifications that fixed turnover tax at the penultimate purchase point for a limited period and thereafter at the last purchase point, with exemption at other points conditioned upon production of the prescribed declaration. The assessee was found to be the last purchaser of rubber and had itself paid sales tax on the purchases, while also producing declarations under S.R.O. No. 716 of 1988 in some assessments. The arrangement of purchase through agents did not alter the incidence of turnover tax, since the statutory scheme treated principal and agent liability as co-extensive for sales tax and turnover tax.

Conclusion: S.R.O. No. 1341 of 1987 did not govern the assessee's claim for exemption on rubber purchases, and the claim had to be considered only under S.R.O. Nos. 715 and 716 of 1988. The Tribunal's orders were set aside and the matters were remanded for fresh consideration on that basis.

Final Conclusion: The exemption dispute was not finally answered on the basis adopted by the Tribunal, and the cases were sent back for reconsideration under the correct rubber notifications.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a commodity is governed by specific turnover-tax notifications, a general exemption notification for agents does not control the incidence or exemption of tax on that commodity, and the exemption must be tested only under the commodity-specific notification and its prescribed conditions.

---