Skip to content


Southern India Tea Estates Company Limited Vs. the State of Kerala - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtKerala High Court
Decided On
Case Number Tax Revision Case No. 91 of 1966
Judge
Reported in[1967]20STC397(Ker)
AppellantSouthern India Tea Estates Company Limited
RespondentThe State of Kerala
Appellant Advocate K.V. Suryanarayana Iyer,; T.L. Viswanatha Iyer and; Joy
Respondent AdvocateThe Government Pleader
DispositionPetition allowed
Cases ReferredThe State of Gujarat v. Raipur
Excerpt:
- s. velu pillai, j.1. the only contention urged before us relates to the old shade trees sold by the petitioner. in the light of the supreme court decision, the state of gujarat v. raipur . [1967] 19 s.t.c. 1, it must be held that the fact that an assessee is a dealer in some commodities does not necessarily mean that he is a dealer in others ; and the contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the company is not a dealer as far as the old shade trees are concerned.2. the petitioner is a dealer in tea and the sale of the shade trees should by its nature be an isolated transaction, occurring, perhaps in a generation or two. there is ;no regular frequency for such sales and we are unable to hold that the petitioner is a dealer as far as the old shade trees sold by the company are.....
Judgment:

S. Velu Pillai, J.

1. The only contention urged before us relates to the old shade trees sold by the petitioner. In the light of the Supreme Court decision, The State of Gujarat v. Raipur . [1967] 19 S.T.C. 1, it must be held that the fact that an assessee is a dealer in some commodities does not necessarily mean that he is a dealer in others ; and the contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the company is not a dealer as far as the old shade trees are concerned.

2. The petitioner is a dealer in tea and the sale of the shade trees should by its nature be an isolated transaction, occurring, perhaps in a generation or two. There is ;no regular frequency for such sales and we are unable to hold that the petitioner is a dealer as far as the old shade trees sold by the company are concerned.

3. In this view, the T.R.C. has to be allowed to the extent indicated above and we do so. The point was not specifically urged before the Tribunal and in view of that there will be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //