TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 294
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s common judgment. 2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of these O.T. Revisions are as follows: The revision petitioner is a company holding rubber plantations. During the assessment years from 2005-06 to 2010-11, the petitioner had entered into an agreement with a third party by which the third party was granted a right to tap and remove rubber crop (latex) from approximately 7000 rubber trees standing in an area of approximately 60 acres of the petitioner's land. The agreement envisaged a consideration of Rs.7,00,000/- to be paid to the petitioner in 4 instalments spread over the year in question, and permitted the third party licensee to extract the rubber latex from the rubber trees during the period of the licensee. 3. The a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... proceeded to confirm the demand of tax on the petitioner under the KVAT Act. 4. Although the petitioner preferred further appeals before the 1st Appellate Authority and thereafter before the Kerala Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal, the said appeals did not meet with any degree of success and they were dismissed by the said authorities. It is against the order of dismissal by the Kerala Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal that the petitioner is before us through these revision petitions wherein the following questions of law are raised: A) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, is not findings of the learned tribunal perverse? B) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, has not the appellate tribunal err....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he property in the latex that is extracted from the rubber trees from the petitioner to the third party. It is also relevant that the consideration that flowed from the third party to the petitioner was for the latex that was obtained by him and not merely for the right to collect the latex. The reliance placed by the learned counsel on the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Muninagalah v. State of Karnataka and Others [1997 (106) STC 294] also cannot come to his aid since we find that, that was a case that concerned the grant of a right to collect tamarind from specified forest areas which was conferred on the forest contractor through a public auction as per the provisions of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1964. While the contractor in th....