IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 1ST PHALGUNA 1929 TRC.No. 380 of 2001() --------------------- TA.41/1988 of S.T.A.TRIBUNAL,ADDL.BENCH,KZD. .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ------------ STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.P.PRADEEP RESPONDENTS: ------------- THE NILAMBUR RUBBER CO. LTD., BEACH ROAD, CALICUT-1. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE THIS TAX REVISION CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/02/2008, ALONG WITH TRC NO.330 OF 2001, THE COURT ON 20/02/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. .................................................................... T.R.C. Nos.380 & 330 of 2001 .................................................................... Dated this the 20th day of February, 2008. JUDGMENT C.N.Ramachandran Nair, J. The question raised in the revision cases filed by the department is whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that respondent-company is not a "dealer" under the CST Act. Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the Tribunal's decision is based on decisions of the Supreme Court and therefore, the question raised has to be answered in favour of the respondent-assessee. However, Government Pleader pointed out that decisions of the Supreme Court relied on by the Tribunal pertains to the period prior to amendment to the CST Act and this court in the decision rendered later in the year 1990 and reported in BRAMORE ESTATES LTD. V. STATE OF KERALA (78 STC 263) held that the plantation company is a dealer under the CST Act. It is also submitted by the Government Pleader that Association of Planters in Kerala agreed with the Government in 1978 for registration and payment of tax by Plantation Companies without any contest and based on such understanding CST was waived upto the year 1978. We do not know whether for later years the assessee 2 retained registration under the CST Act or made interstate sales at all. If the assessee does not want any CST registration and is not engaged in marketing of goods outside the State, probably the issue is only academic. Since these matters are not considered by the Tribunal and since we feel the assessing authority will be the appropriate authority to decide the matter based on the current operations of the respondent-assessee, we dispose of the revision cases by setting aside Tribunal's orders with direction to the Assessing Officer to reconsider the assessee's requirement and liability for registration under the CST Act as "dealer" after hearing the assessee and after verifying the business transactions of the assessee and with reference to current provisions of the Act and later decisions of this court and Supreme Court on amended provisions of the Act. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms