9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 432X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rala General Sales Tax Act, on the purchase turnover of rubber in any form used for the manufacture of centrifuged latex and crumb rubber. 3. The petitioners in these writ petitions have approached this Court at different stages of the assessment proceedings that are pending against them. While the petitioner in W.P.(C). No.24228 of 2008 is a dealer whose KGST and CST assessments for the assessment years 2001-2002 to 2003-2004 were completed vide Exts.P1 to P6 orders granting the exemption in terms of SRO 316/2005, he was served with Ext.P9 notice by the 2nd respondent who proposed to reopen the assessments by invoking powers under Section 35 of the KGST Act on the ground that the exemption to the petitioner had been erroneously granted in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the purchase turnover of rubber in any form used for the manufacture of centrifuged latex and crumb rubber. The contention taken by the respondent authorities is that in view of decisions of the Supreme Court and of this Court which had expressed the view that field latex, centrifuged latex and crumb rubber were essentially the same commercial commodity, it could not be said that there was any manufacturing process involved in the conversion of field latex into centrifuged latex and crumb rubber. The benefit of the Notification granting exemption was therefore sought to be denied to the petitioners on that ground. It was also the view of the respondent authorities that Notification SRO 316/2005, which granted the benefit of exemption from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fuged latex and crumb rubber to dealers who purchased it within the State then, as long as they obtained the necessary declaration from the purchasing dealer, they would not be liable to pay any tax on the sake of centrifuged latex or crumb rubber. It is also pointed out that at any rate, in view of the earlier decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court, there was no process of manufacture involved in the conversion of field latex into centrifuged latex or crumb rubber and in that view of the matter, the assessees were not entitled to the benefit of Notification SRO 316/05. 6. I have heard Sri. Harisankar V.Menon, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as also the Smt.Lilly K.T, the learned Government Pleader appeari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t or points in the series of sales or purchases by successive dealers, or (ii) by any specified class of persons in regard to the whole or any part of their turnover. (2) Any exemption from tax, or reduction in the rate of tax, notified under sub-section (1).- (a) may extend to the whole State or to any specified area or areas therein, (b) may be subject to such restrictions and conditions as may be specified in the notification. (3) The Government may by notification in the Gazette, cancel or vary any notification issued under sub section (1)." 8. It is pointed out that there is a distinction between the power to grant exemption which is available under Section 10 (1) and the power to cancel or vary any Notification that is available ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocess of conversion of field latex to centrifuged latex and crumb rubber, is one that does not involve a process of manufacture for the purposes of the Notification granting exemption. This again is no longer an issue that is res integra. A learned Single Judge of this Court, in the judgment dated 17.06.2009 in W.P.(C).Nos.21251 & 21286 of 2008, had occasion to consider the very same contention in the context of the Notification SRO 695/03 which was the exemption Notification in force for the period from 01.04.1988 to 09.10.2001. Dealing with a contention similar to that taken by the respondents in the instant case, it was found as follows in paragraph 13 of the said judgment: "13. What is stated, as already noted, is that the Apex Court h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Apex Court has pronounced that there is no manufacture involved. Such a finding by the Apex Court, as already noted, is not to be found in the judgment. Therefore, the very premise of the notices appears to be unsupportable." 10. It will be seen from a perusal of the afore quoted extract of the judgment of the learned Single Judge that insofar as the exemption Notifications in question clearly indicate the understanding of the State Government that there is a process of manufacture involved in the conversion of field latex to centrifuged latex and crumb rubber, it cannot be the stand of the department that there is no manufacturing process involved in such a conversion. In that view of the matter, the 2nd objection raised by the departm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
