TMI Blog1968 (8) TMI 165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n itself is not decisive on the question as to whether the turnover of inter-State sales of rubber is taxable under the Act. - Civil Appeal No. 2234, 2235, & 2236 of 1966 - - - Dated:- 14-8-1968 - RAMASWAMI V. AND GROVER A.N. JJ. A.G. Pudissery, Advocate, for the appellant in all the appeals. S.T. Desai, Senior Advocate (Miss Bhuvanesh Kumari, Advocate, for J.B. Dadachanji and Co., with him), for the respondent in C.A. No. 2234 of 1966. Miss Bhuvanesh Kumari, Advocate, for J.B. Dadachanji and Co., for the respondents in C.A. Nos. 2235 and 2236 of 1966. -------------------------------------------------- (Civil Appeal No. 2234 of 1966.) The judgment of the court was delivered by RAMASWAMI, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 72 of 1963. By its order dated January 1, 1964, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the company was not a dealer and the inter-State sales of rubber were not taxable under the Act. The appellants thereupon filed Tax Revision Case No. 8 of 1964 before the High Court of Kerala and challenged the correctness of the decision of the Appellate Tribunal. By its order dated July 19, 1965, the High Court dismissed the tax revision case holding that the respondent-company was not a dealer as defined in section 2(b) of the Act and followed its previous decision in Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Quilon v. Travancore Rubber and Tea Company Ltd. [1964] 15 S.T.C. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .[1967] 20 S.T.C. 520. In the present case also, the only facts found are that the assessee was a public limited company which was engaged in the business of planting and growing rubber trees and converting the latex obtained from the trees into rubber sheets and regularly selling the rubber sheets thus produced by it. It was argued for the appellant that the company was registered as a "dealer" as defined under section 2(b) of the Act. But this fact in itself is not decisive on the question as to whether the turnover of inter-State sales of rubber is taxable under the Act. Otherwise the material facts in the present case are almost identical with those in Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Quilon v. Travancore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
