TMI Blog1990 (1) TMI 280X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pinning mills of the petitioner are situated at Nattika in Kerala State. It appears, for the sales of yarn at the sales depot of the petitioner, assessments were completed for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76. Subsequently, it was found, that the petitioner had purchased cotton in this State and pressed the same into bales at Tiruppur and thereafter transported them to its mills at Nattika in Kerala State. Therefore, the assessments for the said two years were reopened and tax levied on the turnover of the purchase of cotton, treating the petitioner as the last purchaser of cotton in this State. 4.. The defence put forward by the petitioner was that it (petitioner) is not the last purchaser, but only the seller of the petitioner i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being the same, the very same turnover cannot again be subjected to tax in view of the fact that cotton being "declared goods" and liable to tax at one point and at a particular rate. In support of this, the learned counsel placed reliance on a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Ayyanahalli Bakappa Sons reported in [1988] 71 STC 202. 8.. When the matter was argued on an earlier occasion and the learned counsel for the petitioner cited the above said Supreme Court judgment, we adjourned the matter to enable the learned Additional Government Pleader to look into the matter further and advance arguments to get over the judgment of the Supreme Court. The learned Additional Government Pleader, after going through ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that sale of safety matches is liable to first point tax at the prescribed rate. Since one set of tax has already been collected from the depot holders at the point of sale to the assessee within the State, we see no justification to allow a second set of tax to be raised. In view of this finding, the answer to the second aspect has to be against the State. It is not. necessary to get into the academic question as to whether the notice was sustainable in law. We leave that contention open to be examined in an appropriate case." 10.. We have noticed earlier that in the case on hand, the turnovers have already been subjected to tax and the tax though on record paid by the vendor of the petitioner, ultimately, it is the petitioner who pai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
