IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2009 / 30TH ASWINA 1931 ST.Rev..No. 161 of 2009() ------------------------- TA.293/2008 of STAT ADDL.BENCH, KOTTAYAM .................... REVN.PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE ------------------------------------------------------ T.V.JOSE, AGED 47 YEARS,S/O.VARKEY,CHAMAKALAYIL, MEVELLOOR P.O.,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ALIAS M.CHERIAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/REVENUE --------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY G.P. SRI.MOHAMMED RAFIQ THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/10/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. .................................................................... S.T. Rev. No.161 of 2009 .................................................................... Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2009. ORDER Ramachandran Nair, J. The question raised is whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the petitioner is liable to pay purchase tax in respect of wood and bamboo supplied by the petitioner to Hindustan Newsprint Limited for manufacture of pulp. Even though the Tribunal has considered the case as one of purchase tax liability, we notice from the assessment order that the tax levied is at sale point on sales turnover of bamboo and softwood etc., of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that petitioner was not a registered dealer until 1.10.2000 and, therefore, for supplies made until the said period, HNL was paying tax under Section 5A on the purchase turnover. Since the very same turnover has suffered tax under Section 5A, there is no scope for assessment of the turnover under Section 5(1) of the KGST Act, is the case of the petitioner. Even though the commodity is taxable at sale point, since petitioner's sales turnover is admittedly above the limit that 2 attracts liability for tax, the assessment is perfectly justified. However, we find that the Government has issued exemption Notifications periodically, two of which are produced as Annexures A2 and A6, which show that the turnover of pulp wood supplied by dealers at the factory gate of the HNL will be entitled to exemption, if HNL has paid purchase tax under Section 5A of the KGST Act. The case of the petitioner is that petitioner is covered by Notifications abovereferred and he has produced certificate from HNL confirming payment of purchase tax. We find force in this contention because Annexure A2 Notification S.R.O. No.600/2006 dated 16.8.2006 is given retrospective effect from 1st April, 2000. Even though the later amendment covering suppliers of softwood also was introduced on 3rd June, 2009, it is given retrospectivity from 17.8.2006 which is the date of issue of the first Notification abovereferred. Since the first Notification later amended is effective from 1st April, 2000, we feel petitioner is entitled to exemption from sales tax on the supplies to HNL, if the entire sales turnover is subject to purchase tax at the hands of HNL. The petitioner is directed to produce a certificate from HNL 3 containing details of purchase bills with quantity and purchase value and the tax remittance made by HNL for the Assessing Officer to consider the same. On receipt of the documents produced by the petitioner, the Assessing Officer will call for report from the Assessing Officer before whom HNL is registered, for reconfirmation and if HNL has paid purchase tax on the very same commodity at the point of last purchase from the petitioner, then exemption will be granted to the petitioner based on the Notification abovereferred. The S.T. Revision case is disposed of as above. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge V.K.MOHANAN Judge pms