9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog1996 (10) TMI 421X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yagi, Advocates for M/s. J.B. Dadacharji and Co., Advocates, with him) for the respondent in C.A. Nos. 952-957 of 1986 and the petitioners in S.L.P. (C) No. 3091 of 1993. -------------------------------------------------- ORDER S.L.P. (C) No. 3091/93: This special leave petition is filed against the judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court of Kerala in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. [formerly Caltex Oil Refining (India) Ltd.] v. State of Kerala, which has since been reported in [1993] 89 STC 106. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the petitioner-company, which was at all material times dealing in petroleum products, purchased petroleum products manufactured by another oil company known as Cochin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing primarily that of the producer, the liability discharged was that of the producer. The excise duty paid by the petitioner was, said the High Court, in discharge of the liability of CRL and would form part of the purchase turnover of the petitioner for the purposes of section 5-A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter called "the Act"). It is this view of the High Court which is sought to be challenged by the petitioner in this petition. 2.. We have carefully read the decision rendered by the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court. The High Court rightly concluded after referring to a catena of decisions rendered by this Court and after referring to the relevant Rules, namely, rules 3, 9, 9A, 140, 157, 173 and 173-N that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed is unexceptionable and since we cannot accept the contention attempted to be put forward that the liability is joint and several so far as the manufacturer and the purchaser are concerned, we must uphold the decision reached by the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court. In our view, the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court has correctly analysed the provisions of the Act and the relevant rules as well as the decisions rendered by this Court to which the attention of the High Court was drawn. We, therefore, do not see any reason to entertain this special leave petition. It will stand dismissed with no order as to costs. S.L.P. (C) Nos. 14615-14619 of 1996: 3.. In view of the short order passed while rejecting S.L.P.(C) No. 3091 of 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , we are told that the very same point arises in Civil Appeal Nos. 374-377 of 1979 which has been referred to a three-Judge Bench. However, counsel for the respondent contends that it is not necessary to keep these appeals pending because if the decision taken in a group of appeals, Civil Appeal Nos. 374-377 of 1979 is against the respondent-assessee, the respondent-assessee undertakes to abide by that decision and pay the tax in accordance with that decision. In view of this statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent-assessee, we do not see any reason to retain these appeals on the file of this Court. These appeals will, therefore, stand disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. Appeals allowed and petitions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
