IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2008 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1929 ST.Rev..No. 74 of 2008 ------------------------ TA.259/2006 of KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,TVM. .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE: ------------------------------------------------------ M/S.MOON CHEMICALS, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, NADUVILAKKARA, THEVALAKKARA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.) SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.P.S.APPU RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/REVENUE: --------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. MUHAMMED RAFIQ. THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: H.L. DATTU, C.J. & K.M. JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - S.T.Rev.No.74 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of March, 2008. ORDER H.L.DATTU, CJ, Petitioner-M/s. Moon Chemicals is a registered dealer registered under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (“the KGST Act” for short). It is also a small scale industrial unit. It is engaged in the manufacture of Carbonate Silicate and Sodium Silicate from soluble glass. 2. The assessee for the assessment year 2002-2003, had filed its returns before the assessing authority and had claimed certain exemptions. The assessing authority, after rejecting the books of accounts produced at the time of passing the order of assessment, had rejected the books as defective. The assessing authority also had found that the claim of the assessee for exemption on the sales turnover of Carbonate Silicate and Sodium Silicate has been rejected by the District Industries Centre as well as the State Level Committee. Keeping all these aspects of the matter in view, the assessing authority had observed in his assessment order that there is no manufacturing process involved in the conversion of soluble glass to soap grade sodium and therefore the assessee is liable to pay 12% tax on the sales turnover together with interest. 3. The orders so passed by the assessing authority was the subject matter before the first appellate authority. Even the first appellate authority has concluded that there is no manufacturing activity in the processing done by the assessee in the manufacture of Carbonate Silicate and Sodium Silicate from soluble glass. S.T.Rev.74/2008. 2 4. The order so passed by the first appellate authority is confirmed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. 5. Aggrieved by the order so passed by the Tribunal for the assessment year 2002-2003, the assessee is before us in this Tax Revision Case. 6. The assessee has framed the following questions of law for our consideration and decision: “(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate tribunal was justified in holding that conversion of Sodium Silicate into Carbonated Silicate is not manufacture? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate tribunal was justified in denying exemption when the issue is pending before the Screening Committee? (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate tribunal was justified in sustaining the further addition for the suppressed turnover? (iv) Is the order of the appellate authority vide. Annexure-C legal, valid and in accordance with law?” 7. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. After going through the process involved in the production of Carbonate Silicate and Sodium Silicate from soluble glass, we are of the opinion that there is no manufacturing activity as such and therefore the assessing authority was justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee on the ground that there is no manufacturing activity in the process of the manufacture of carbonate silicate and sodium silicate. In view of the above, the assessee cannot claim any exemption under the notification issued by the State Government. In view of the above, we need to S.T.Rev.74/2008. 3 answer the questions of law framed by the assessee in the negative against the assessee. Accordingly, we reject the petition. Consequently, I.A. 518 of 2008 is also closed. Ordered accordingly. H.L. DATTU, CHIEF JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE sb.