IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 6TH ASWINA 1933 ST.Rev..No. 95 OF 2011() ------------------------ ORDER.5/2010 OF THE KERALA AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX & SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, PALAKKAD REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE ---------------------------------------------------------- M/S.PRIMA INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, NEW INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA, MENONPARA ROAD, KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD-678 621, REPRESENTED BY IT'S MANAGING DIRECTOR- MR.SANJAY GUPTA. BY ADV. SRI.PREMJIT NAGENDRAN SMT.K.B.SUBHAGAMANI RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM-682015. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. MOHAMMED RAFEEQ. THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/09/2011, ALONG WITH STRV NO. 96 OF 2011 STRV NO. 97 OF 2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY, PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.T.REV. 95/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE-A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE S.R.O. NO. 1729 OF 1993. ANNEXURE B PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE EXEMPTION ORDER NO. C4-7- 1164/97/CT DATED 02.08.1999 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(G) ANNEXURE C- PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO. 3112 2899/98-99 DATED 28.3.2003 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL SALS TAX OFFICER, PALAKKAD. ANNEXURE D PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN S.T. APPEAL NOS. 6664/05, 6605/05, 115/07, 114/07 & 3073/06 DATED 4.2.2009. ANNEXURE E TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER NOS. T.A. 5,6 & 7/2010 DATED 30.6.2011 ISSUED BY THE TRIBUNAL. ANNEXURE F TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER T.A. NO. 945/2003 OF THE KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, PALAKKAD, DATED 19.5.2004. // TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. KNC/- C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = S.T. REV. Nos. 95, 96 & 97 of 2011 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 28th OF SEPTEMBER, 2011. J U D G M E N T C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader for the respondents. The only question raised is against the disallowance of sales tax exemption on sale of palm oil. Petitioner claimed exemption based on Notification issued under SRO 1729/93. However, exemption was declined for the reason that petitioner is not engaged in manufacture of palm oil. Petitioner admits the correctness of the findings confirmed by the Tribunal in as much as petitioner is not engaged in manufacture of palm oil. 2. The contention now raised by the petitioner before this Court is that the entire palm oil sold was purchased from Kerala paying tax on first sale. Counsel for the petitioner produced copy of G.O.(P) No. 119/2007/TD dated 10.5.2007 wherein Government has granted exemption on second sale of palm oil even at the branded name by those who purchased it from dealers in Kerala who have collected and remitted tax on first sale. Even though the petitioner raised this contention before the S.T.REV. NOS. 95,96 & 97/2011 2 Tribunal, the Tribunal, without considering the issue in detail, rejected the same. Before us, counsel has produced statement showing details of suppliers in Kerala, who are all mostly dealers in Kochi. If the petitioner has purchased palm oil from Kerala on which suppliers have paid tax, then under notification above referred, petitioner is entitled to exemption. However, it is seen that petitioner has not raised a second sale exemption in the returns filed because petitioner's sales are in branded packets attracting tax under Section 5(2) of the Act and but for notification above referred which was issued only on 10.5.2009 petitioner is liable to pay tax. We feel petitioner is entitled to the benefit of notification because it is retrospective in effect. 3. Accordingly, we dispose of these revisions by directing the petitioner to produce the entire purchase bills along with the transport documents before the assessing officer for the purchase of palm oil and on receipt of the same, the assessing officer will verify correctness by calling for the details of assessments of suppliers and if purchases are proved, then assessing officer will grant exemption. The assessing officer is directed to decide the matter afresh within a period of three months from now. If petitioner is found to be entitled for exemption, assessment orders will be S.T.REV. NOS. 95,96 & 97/2011 3 rectified by granting exemption or otherwise tax demanded will be recovered. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, (JUDGE) P.S. GOPINATHAN, KNC/- (JUDGE)