IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 30TH AUGUST 2010 / 8TH BHADRA 1932 ST.Rev..No. 331 of 2006() ------------------------- TA.107/2002 of STAT ADDL.BENCH, KOTTAYAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE. ----------------------------------------------------------- KURIAN ABRAHAM, MOUNT SAHYA, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. DR.K.B.MOHAMMEDKUTTY (SR) SRI.K.M.FIROZ RESPONDENT(S): REVENUE. ----------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY G.P. SRI. MOHAMMED RAFEEQ THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.R. C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- S. T. Rev. No. 331 of 2006 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard senior counsel Dr. K.B. Mohamedkutty appearing for the petitioner and Government Pleader Sri. Mohammed Rafeeq appearing for the respondent. The question raised is whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that petitioner-assessee is liable to pay tax on the last purchase of ginger which is exported in powdered form. Exemption under Section 5(3) of the CST Act was declined for the reason that the commodity purchased on which tax is payable at the point of last purchase in the State under the KGST Act is not exported in the same form. We notice from the order of the Tribunal that they have only followed Full Bench decision of this Court in R. SURESH KUMAR V. STATE OF KERALA, 13 KTR 70 which is in respect of conversion of tamarind seed into tamarind seed powder which this Court held amounts to manufacture. The Tribunal has also relied on the STRV 331/2006 2 decision of the Supreme Court in RAJASTHAN ROLLER FLOUR MILLS ASSN. V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN, 91 STC 408, wherein the Supreme Court held that atta, maida, etc. are different commercial products with different identity and use. It is also seen that Tribunal has relied on decision of this Court in TATSON FOOD INDUSTRIES V. STATE OF KERALA, (1999) 3 K.L.T. 174 (FB) wherein this Court held that turmeric and turmeric powder are not the same goods. So much so, the Tribunal has held that ginger powder is a manufactured product obtained from ginger and therefore petitioner is liable to pay tax on the ginger in terms of scheduled entry which provides for tax at the point of last purchase in the State, no matter the assessee has powdered and exported the ginger. Since the Tribunal decided the issue based on several decisions of this Court and that of the Supreme Court, which are squarely applicable to the facts of this case, we dismiss the Sales Tax Revision Case. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (K. SURENDRA MOHAN) Judge. kk STRV 331/2006 3 kk