9911796707
TMI Blog1968 (8) TMI 165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ----------------------------- (Civil Appeal No. 2234 of 1966.) The judgment of the court was delivered by RAMASWAMI, J.-This appeal is brought by certificate from the judgment of the High Court of Kerala dated July 19, 1965, in Tax Revision Case No. 8 of 1964. The respondent, the Midland Rubber and Produce Company Ltd., hereinafter referred to as "the company", is a public limited company 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 them. The company is a registered dealer under section 7 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (74 of of 1956), hereinafter referred to as "the Act". ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cision in Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Quilon v. Travancore Rubber and Tea Company Ltd. [1964] 15 S.T.C. 615; 1964 K.L.J. 534., The questions of law arising in this appeal have been the subject- matter of consideration by this court in Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Quilon v. Travancore Rubber and Tea Co. [1967] 20 S.T.C. 520., It was held in that case that though it was conceivable that a producer of crops might also engage in the business of selling or supplying and become a "dealer", the burden of proving that the assessee was carrying on the business of selling or supplying was upon the sales tax authorities and if they made no investigation and have come to the conclusion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the present case are almost identical with those in Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Quilon v. Travancore Rubber and Tea Co. [1967] 20 S.T.C. 520., and for the reasons expressed in that case we hold that the sales tax department had not discharged the onus of proving that the assessee was carrying on the business and was therefore a dealer within the meaning of section 2(b) of the Act. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed, but in the circumstances there will be no order as to costs. (Civil Appeals Nos. 2235 and 2236 of 1966.) These appeals are brought by certificates from the judgment of the Kerala High Court dated July 19, 1965, in Tax Revision Cases Nos. 9 and 10 of 1964. The question of law inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
