TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (9) TMI 814
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sment years concerned are 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92. The assessee is a dealer in rubber which is an item liable to tax only at the last purchase point under section 5(1) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 read with the entry in the First Schedule. The question raised for consideration in these cases is as to whether the petitioner is liable to pay turnover tax levied under section 5(2A) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....both the appellate authorities. 2.. Smt. S.K. Devi, the learned counsel appearing for the assessee, submits that this is a case where the assessee had produced form No. 25 declarations in all the cases, which would clearly show that the assessee is not the last purchaser. The counsel also relied on the decision of this Court in P.I. Varghese & Sons v. State of Kerala [2002] 126 STC 217; (2002) 10....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../1988. He further pointed out that though the assessee has produced declaration forms in many of said forms the details regarding the payment of tax is absent and, therefore, the authorities have validly rejected the said declaration forms. 4.. The fact that the turnover tax is exigible at all points of sale under section 5(2A) of the Act during the relevant period is in dispute. The assessee is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....submitted by the assessee is that the details regarding payment of tax are not contained in the said declarations. If that was the sole reason for rejecting the declarations, according to us, the assessing authority ought to have afforded an opportunity to the assessee to rectify the said mistakes in the declaration and/or to produce fresh declarations as contemplated under the notification within....