TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (8) TMI 809
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t years 1998-99, 199697 and 2001-02, respectively. The assessee is a small-scale industrial unit. It is engaged in the manufacture of chemically treated rubber wood products. At the outset, we intend to observe that, the rubber wood purchased by the assessee is not an item taxable at the last purchase point. The assessee had approached the General Manager, District Industries Centre for grant of exemption from payment of tax under the Act, in view of S.R.O. No. 499/1990 which was substituted by S.R.O. No. 1729/1993 with effect from April 1, 1993. The General Manager, District Industries Centre, by his order dated March 18, 1998, has granted exemption from payment of Kerala general sales tax/Central sales tax/purchase tax ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ars in question. Before doing so, the assessing authority had issued notice under section 19(1) of the Act and in that had stated as under: "Being manufacture of treated rubber wood products, the assessee is liable to pay tax under section 5A of the Act on the purchase turnover of rubber wood purchased from unregistered dealers and used for manufacturing finished products from season and treatment. But the above turnover has escaped from assessment already completed. The turnover so escaped will be reassessed by reopening the assessment under section 19(1) of the Act. . . . The assessee is not eligible to get set-off of the tax and surcharge dues on the purchase turnover under section 5A of the Act mentioned in item No. 2 above in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessment years in question. Aggrieved by the findings and conclusions reached by the Tribunal, the assessee is before us, in these tax revision cases. The assessee has framed the following questions of law for our consideration and consequent decision. 1.. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law in upholding annexure A revised order considering the fact that the original assessment order is set aside by the Appellate Tribunal itself in annexure B order? 2.. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in upholding the denial of exemption on purchase tax on the turnover of rubber wood used for manufacturing, consi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 5A of the Act. In support of that contention, the learned counsel relies on the observations made by this court in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Ernakulam v. Surya Refineries (P) Ltd. [1991] KLJ (Tax Cases) 513 and the dicta and the observations made by the apex court in the case of Pondicherry State Cooperative Consumer Federation Ltd. v. Union Territory of Pondicherry [2007] 10 VST 630 and Vadilal Chemicals Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh [2005] 142 STC 76. In conclusion, the learned counsel would submit that the orders of reassessment passed by the assessing authority and the orders passed by the Tribunal require to be interfered by this court in exercise of the powers under section 41 of the Act. Per contra, Sr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the notification. The argument is misplaced. The notification applies to goods of the description that are taxable at the point of last purchase in the State under the Act. The particular copper scrap is not goods of a description which are taxable under the Act at the point of last purchase in the State. The particular copper scrap is, therefore, not entitled to the benefit of the exemption under the notification. The question is not whether the particular copper scrap which the respondent purchased became, by reason of circumstances, taxable at the point of last purchase in the State but whether copper scrap as a description of goods is taxable under the Act at the point of last purchase in the State. Since it is not, the benefit of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es Department consists of three members, one of which is also a sales tax member, the assessing authority could not have meddled with the exemption granted by a superior authority. It is on that ground that the court had annulled the orders passed by the assessing authority. In the instant case, the question is whether the assessee is entitled for exemption from payment of purchase tax. In fact, in the certificate issued, the General Manager of District Industries Centre has specifically stated that the petitioner is entitled for exemption only on goods manufactured and sold and no exemption is granted from payment of purchase tax. In that view of the matter, it is difficult to accept the submissions made by Sri Muraleedharan Nair, le....