IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1931 ST.Rev..No. 235 of 2007() ------------------------- TA.4/2006 of S.T.A.T.ADDL.BENCH,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA REP. BY JOINT COMMISSIONER(LAW) IN-CHARGE, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY G.P. SRI.MOHAMMED RAFIQ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- M/S LOUIS DREFUS INDIA(P) LTD., F-301 GOURI SADAN, 5-HAILWAY ROAD, NEW DELHI-110001. ADV. SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE, SENIOR ADVOCATE THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/11/2009, ALONG WITH STRV NO.237 OF 2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. .................................................................... S.T. Rev. Nos.235 & 237 of 2007 .................................................................... Dated this the 10th day of November, 2009. ORDER Ramachandran Nair, J. Question raised in the revisions filed by the State is whether the Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the first appellate authority declining eligibility for sales tax exemption on the imported sugar sold by the respondent. The claim for exemption was on the ground that white sugar imported and sold by the respondent falls under Entry 56 of the IIIrd Schedule to the KGST Act. We have heard Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner and counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The issue was once decided on merit by one of us constituting Single Bench vide judgment in O.P. No.35879/2002 in favour of the respondent. However, the said judgment was set aside by the Division Bench for the officer to consider the case on merits. Even though the Assessing Officer disallowed exemption, the first appellate authority as well as the Tribunal held in favour of the respondent. In fact, the 2 scheme of exemption under the IIIrd Schedule for various goods like tobacco, sugar etc., is with reference to payment of additional Excise Duty. In order to clarify the position, we requested the Assessing officer to get a certificate from the Customs Department as to whether Additional Duty of Excise is collected on the imported sugar at the time of clearance at the Port. The report produced by the department from the Customs Department shows that Additional Excise Duty is also levied on the imported sugar. We are, therefore, of the view that the Tribunal rightly held that the imported sugar falls under Entry 56 of the IIIrd Schedule to the KGST Act. We, therefore, dismiss the Sales Tax Revisions filed by the State. However, our decision will apply only for the year in question and in view of the subsequent amendments, import made after amendment will be governed by the amended provisions. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge V.K.MOHANAN Judge pms