TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (4) TMI 456
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e disposed of by a common judgment. 2.. The questions of law raised for decision of this Court in all the four cases are the same and they are as follows: "1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in directing the deletion of the amount of cess from the taxable turnover? 2.. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in finding that the assessee cannot be called upon to pay tax higher than what is suggested in the Schedule and while computing tax liability of the assessee credit shall be given to the amount of sales tax suffered by the assessee at the time of the local purchase of the reclaimed rubber? 3.. Is not the finding of the Tribunal on this que....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....neral Sales Tax Act. The Tribunal has held that it is not liable to be included in the taxable turnover of the assessee in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of the assessee itself in Madras Rubber Factory Limited v. State of Kerala [1989] 74 STC 56. The question, according to us, is concluded by the abovementioned Full Bench decision. Accordingly, we hold that the Tribunal is perfectly justified in directing deletion of the said amount from the taxable turnover of the assessee. 5.. The next question is as to whether the alternate contention raised by the assessee before the Tribunal that if tax is to be levied on the local purchase turnover of reclaimed rubber at the hands of the assessee, as held by the Tribunal,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s to the effect that reclaimed rubber is rubber and therefore, the assessee is the last purchaser of rubber inside the State liable to tax under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, the fact that his seller erroneously collected or bona fide collected sales tax on its sales to the assessee will not absolve the assessee from paying the tax due under the Act. For that reason, the assessee also cannot claim any adjustment of the tax erroneously or bona fide paid to a selling dealer because there is no provision under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 enabling the assessing authority or for that matter the appellate authorities including this Court sitting in revision to grant any such relief to a dealer. Needless to say, as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he factory at Madras, the property in the goods passed in the head office at Madras directly, all the ingredients of interState purchase by head office at Madras were existing in all the transactions and the depots at Kottayam and Calicut had nothing to do with these transactions, except that certain payments were made to the suppliers as per directions from the head office. The payment is not a relevant factor to judge who was the purchaser as explained above. It was only an internal arrangement of the head office to effect payments through its depots on their behalf to their creditors. It is urged that the observations that purchases are local purchases by the depots and are includible in the taxable purchase turnover is legally and factu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the company for the transportation of goods from Kerala. As such the goods were carried from Kerala to Madras as goods of M.R.F. at the risk of the assessee-company and not at the risk of estate owners. Therefore the sales by the estate owners could by no means be regarded as sales in the course of inter-State." Accordingly he treated the transaction as a local purchase. 8.. The first appellate authority with reference to the contentions raised by the assessee examined the purchase orders of the Madras head office, invoices issued by the suppliers, Rubber Board "N" forms issued by the suppliers in favour of Madras head office, carriers way bill, etc., and observed that the above documents clearly establish that the transactions were d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ad office at Madras. Therefore the contention of the Revenue is rejected." 10.. The learned Additional Advocate-General appearing for the department very strenuously canvassed the concurrent findings of the two appellate authorities and submitted that the assessing authority had given cogent reasons for treating the transaction as local sales and that the two appellate authorities were not justified in upsetting the same. He submitted that the payment of the amount by the local unit of the company is a sure indication that the transaction is a local sale exigible to tax under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. The learned senior counsel appearing for the assessee maintained that the two appellate authorities on a proper consideration of t....