2010 (11) TMI 878

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....heard the Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner and Sri T. M. Sreedharan, counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee. The facts leading to controversy are the following. The respondentassessee is a rice mill enjoying sales tax exemption on the sale of products manufactured by it like rice, rice bran, etc., by virtue of certificate of exemption issued to it under Notification SRO No. 1729 of 1993. Paddy is a raw material out of which rice is produced in the mill. Admittedly both the paddy and rice fall under declared goods, and restriction in regard to levy of tax on these products contained in section 15(c) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, is that while levying tax on rice, rebate should be allowed on tax if any levied on....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Supreme Court just applied the decision in Peekay Re-rolling Mills (P) Ltd.'s case [2007] 6 VST 541 (SC) to the Rice Mill's case as such though factual position is different in the case of rice mill. As already stated, the Legislature itself has provided safeguard against multiplicity of levy of tax on both paddy and rice falling under declared goods. So much so, the posi tion is such that levy of tax on both paddy and rice has to be considered at the hands of dealer. In Peekay Re-rolling Mills (P) Ltd.'s case [2007] 6 VST 541 (SC), the Supreme Court found that there is levy of tax at the point of purchase of ingots by the SSI unit because it was purchased from another industrial unit which was liable to pay tax, but for the....