TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 809X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal, rightly understanding the scope of the exemption certificate issued by the General Manger of the District Industries Centre and also relying upon the observations made by the apex court in the case of State of Kerala v. Vattukalam Chemicals Industries [2001 (8) TMI 1143 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] has rightly rejected the appeals filed by the assessee. We do not see any error of law in the orders passed by the Tribunal which would call for our interference. In that view of the matter, the revision petitions require to be rejected and accordingly they are rejected. - - - - - Dated:- 19-8-2008 - DATTU H.L. C.J. AND BASHEER A.K. , JJ. ORDER:- The order of the court was made by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment notice, inter alia, informing the assessee that it is not entitled for exemption of payment of purchase tax under section 5A of the Act, and had issued notice under section 17(3) of the Act proposing to complete assessment on best-judgment basis. The assessee had filed its reply to the notice issued. After considering the objections filed, the assessing authority has passed an order by confirming the proposal made and accordingly had issued notice demanding payment of purchase tax and the interest. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the assessing authority, the assessee had filed appeal before the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority has confirmed the orders passed by the assessing authority. For the assessment ye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the notice, the assessee had filed its reply, and, in that the assessee had stated that, in view of the exemption certificate granted by the General Manager, District Industries Centre, the assessee is entitled for exemption from payment of purchase tax. The assessee had also relied on the observations made by this court in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Ernakulam v. Surya Refineries (P) Ltd. [1991] KLJ (Tax Cases) 513. The assessing authority, after noticing the objections filed by the assessee and also after referring to the decision of this court had come to the conclusion that the assessee is not entitled for exemption of levy of purchase tax under section 5A of the Act. Aggrieved by the orders of assessme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law in confirming the levy of tax under section 5A solely based on the dictum laid down by the honourable Supreme Court in Vattukalam's case [2001] 124 STC 233 (SC) in which there was no consideration of the subsequent notification? Sri N. Muraleedharan Nair, learned counsel appearing for the assessee, would contend that, the assessee, in view of the certificate issued by the General Manager of District Industries Centre, is entitled for exemption from payment of purchase tax under section 5A of the Act. The learned counsel would further submit that, correctly understanding the scope of the certificate, the assessing authority, initially had granted exemption from payment of purchase tax for the assessment years 1996-97 and 1998-99, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmit that, S.R.O. No. 499/1990, which has been replaced by S.R.O. No. 1729/1993, in fact, was the subject-matter of the apex court in the aforesaid decision, and, the court has stated that since the item in question is not taxable at the last purchase point, the assessee is not entitled for exemption from payment of purchase tax. The apex court in the aforesaid decision has observed as under (at page 237 of 124 STC): 4. The respondent-assessee purchased copper scrap for use in the manufacture of copper sulphate. It is an admitted position that copper scrap is not taxable at the point of last purchase in the State. On the plain words of the notification, the exemption given thereby is, therefore, not available to copper scrap and, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndustries [2001] 124 STC 233 on a more or less similar issue has concluded that the assessee therein is not entitled for exemption from payment of purchase tax. In our view, the dicta laid down by the apex court in the case of State of Kerala v. Vattukalam Chemicals Industries [2001] 124 STC 233 would apply to the facts of the present case. However, Sri Muraleedharan Nair, learned counsel appearing for the assessee, has brought to our notice the decision of this court in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Ernakulam v. Surya Refineries (P) Ltd. [1991] KLJ (Tax Cases) 513 and the decisions of the apex court in Pondicherry State Cooperative Consumer Federation Ltd. v. Union Territory of Pondicherry [2007] 10 VST 630 and Vadilal Chemicals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
