AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (7) TMI 618
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the finished goods? B. Whether the Tribunal is justified in upholding the orders of the assessing and appellate authorities who unilaterally denied to the petitioner the benefit of KST exemption on the value of finished goods, though authorized by the Commerce and Industries Department in its Government Order dated July 12, 1993 and certificate dated October 10, 1995, without getting the same modified or cancelled by the concerned authorities in the Commerce and Industries Department or without obtaining the approval/concurrence of the Stale Level Committee? C. Whether the Tribunal is legally justified in considering that 'manufacturing activity' is a pre-condition for grant of exemption from sales tax even though the parent Government order dated July 12, 1993 of the Commerce and Industries Department did not stipulate so? D. Whether the petitioner is eligible for sales lax exemption on the value of finished goods, viz., turmeric powder in terms of Government order dated July 12, 1993 of the Commerce and Industries Department read with the certificate dated October 10, 1995 of the District Industries Centre? E. Whether the activity of the petitioner, namely, con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y's orders are contrary to the Government notification dated July 12, 1993. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed strong reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar v. Suprabhat Steel Ltd. reported in [1999] 112 STC 258 in support of the contention that the State Government has framed the industrial policy; to carry out the same subsequent to notification issued; the same cannot be repugnant to the policy which is approved by the Cabinet of the State Government. Reliance is placed on the said decision to show the finding recorded by the assessing authority, the appellate authority and Karnataka Appellate Tribunal is contrary to the Government notification dated July 12, 1993. The concurrent finding of fact recorded by the appellate authority that the turmeric powder is not different from turmeric roots is once again contrary to the material evidence on record and law laid down by the apex court in the case Rajasthan Roller Flour Mills Association v. State of Rajasthan reported in [1993] 91 STC 408 and other two Division Bench judgments of this court, namely, Brooke Bond [1998] 109 STC 265 and Wipro Infotech [2000] 117 STC 244. In the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....D.I.C., Mysore, at annexure E to show that the claim of exemption from payment of tax in respect of turmeric powder according to him which is manufactured in the petitioner's factory is exempted from payment of tax under the Government policy and Government order referred to supra, to that effect the certificate was issued in favour of the assessee by the competent officer, which is erroneously not accepted by the assessing authority and the appellate authority, which is contrary to the decisions of this court referred to supra. Therefore, Sri. T.N. Keshavamurthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the questions of law in this case which are extracted in this order would arise for answering the same in favour of the assessee. Smt S. Sujatha, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent, placed strong reliance upon the Supreme Court decision reported in the case of Krishna Chander Dutta (Spice) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [1994] 93 STC 180. Though the said case is in relation to section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, in the penultimate paragraph the Supreme Court after referring to Rajasthan Roller Flour Mills Association case [199....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....overnment notification dated August 28, 1993. On the basis of the supplementary notification the certificate issued by the General Manager of District Industries Centre, Mysore, stating that the assessee's industry is registered as small-scale industry located in Kollegal and is registered for the manufacture of vermicelli and spice. We are concerned about the product, namely, turmeric which is one of the spices. In the notification dated July 12, 1993 condition No. (i) stipulates that the interpretation of the Government order and the decision thereon is that of the State Level Co-ordination Committee under the Chairmanship of the Secretary, Commerce and Industries Department. The same shall be final. It is not the case of the respondent-assessing authority that neither the Government policy or the Government order granting exemption under section 8A of the Karantaka Sales Tax Act to the petitioner-industry in the order is not applicable, but the concurrent finding of the authorities holding that turmeric powder is not different from roots of turmeric. Therefore, no manufacturing process is involved in the product though it is one of the spices. Therefore the assessing authori....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ported in the cases of this court in Brooke Bond Lipton [1998] 109 STC 265 and Wipro Infotech [2000] 117 STC 244 and Rajasthan Roller Flour Mills Association's case [1993] 91 STC 408 of this apex court are not accepted by the appellate authorities in support of the legal contention urged by the petitioner's counsel. The said approach of the appellate authority is erroneous in law for the reason that the Supreme Court has examined the provisions of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act and various other statutory enactments of the sales tax of different States with reference to List II of entry 54 of the Seventh Schedule of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, wherein the apex court has held that flour, maida and suji derived from wheat are not "wheat" within the meaning of item (iii) of section 14(i) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956; they are different and distinct goods from wheat. The submission made by the learned Additional Government Advocate that the abovesaid decision rendered keeping in view of the provisions of section 14(i) and (i)(iii) of the Central Sales Tax Act and therefore the same cannot be applied to the exemption granted under section 8A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0, 1995 issued by the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Mysore, wherein he has stated that the petitioner manufactures turmeric powder which is one of the spices. The finding of the assessing authority and the appellate authority not accepting the said certificate and not referred the certificate to the officer of the District Industries Centre seeking clarification and not granted the benefit to the petitioner under the Government notification and they have recorded a finding against her as already we have held that the finding recorded is not only erroneous for non-consideration of the same in favour of the assessee but the same is opposed to the Government policy and exemption granted by the Government vide its order referred to supra and the law laid down by the apex court and the two decisions of the apex court and two Division Bench decisions of this court referred to supra. Therefore, we hold that the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal is not right in not extending the benefit of exemption from payment of sales tax in favour of the assessee. The conversion of turmeric roots into turmeric powder certainly involves manufacturing activity to get eligibility by the petiti....